United States v. Alcea Band of Tillamooks, 341 U.S. 48 (1951). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Alcea Band of Tillamooks, 341 U.S. 48 (1951). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
Quick Summary

Interest on claims against the United States is not recoverable absent an express statutory or contractual provision to the contrary.

The Court of Claims awarded the Alcea Band of Tillamooks compensation for the 1855 taking of original Indian title, including interest from that date. The Supreme Court reviews whether interest is recoverable under the applicable jurisdictional statute. The Court applies the traditional rule that interest on claims against the United States cannot be recovered absent an express statutory or contractual provision. Because the jurisdictional act contains no such provision and the prior opinions did not ground the recovery on a Fifth Amendment taking, the award of interest is improper. The Court reverses the judgment below.

390 citation events (24 in the last 25 years) across 44 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Cox v. Massachusetts Dep't of Corr., et.al., No. 1:13-cv-10379 (D. Mass. Sept. 10, 2019)
Treatment trajectory · 1951 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1951 1988 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 49 Interest on claims against U.S. requires express statutory provision15 citing cases“interest on claims against the united states cannot be recovered in the absence of an express provision to the contrary in the relevant statute or contract.”7 citing courts quote it · also cited as 95 L. Ed. at 739
  • Cox v. Massachusetts Dep't of Corr., et.al., No. 1:13-cv-10379 (D. Mass. Sept. 10, 2019).
    (It is the traditional rule that interest on claims against the United States cannot be recovered in the absence of an express provision to the contrary in the relevant statute or contract.)
  • Markey v. United States, 27 Fed. Cl. 615 (Fed. Cl. 1993).published
    Rayon Importing Co., 329 U.S. 654, 658 [, 67 S.Ct. 601, 603 , 91 L.Ed. 577 ] (1947); United States v. Tillamooks, 341 U.S. 48, 49 [, 71 S.Ct. 552, 552 , 95 L.Ed. 738 ] (1951).
  • Library of Cong. v. Shaw, 478 U.S. 310 (1986).published 2 cites
    Rayon Importing Co., 329 U. S. 654, 658 (1947); United States v. Tillamooks, 341 U. S. 48, 49 (1951).
  • R & R Farm Enter., Inc. v. Fed. Crop Ins. Corp., Dep't of Agric., 788 F.2d 1148 (5th Cir. 1986).published
    United States v. Louisiana, 446 U.S. 253, 264-65 , 100 S.Ct. 1618, 1626 , 64 L.Ed.2d 196, 208 (1980); United States v. Alcea Band of Tillamooks, 341 U.S. 48, 49 , 71 S.Ct. 552 , 95 L.Ed. 738, 739 (1951); United States v. N.Y.
  • United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians, 448 U.S. 371 (1980).published 2 cites
    (recognizing that the "traditional rule" is that interest is not to be awarded on claims against the United States absent an express statutory provision to the contrary and that the "only exception arises when the taking…)
  • S. Pac. Transp. Co. v. United States, 471 F. Supp. 1186 (E.D. Cal. 1979).published 2 cites
    A unanimous Court ruled in United States v. Alce a Band of Tillamooks, 341 U.S. 48, 49 , 71 S.Ct. 552, 552 , 95 L.Ed. 738, 739-40 (1951), to reaffirm the holding of Boston Sand & Gravel.
  • Nez Perce Tribe of Indians v. United States, 176 Ct. Cl. 815 (Ct. Cl. 1966).published
    United States v. Alcea Band of Tillamooks, 341 U.S. 48, 49 (1951) ; United States v. Thayer-West Point Hotel, 329 U.S. 585, 588 (1947) ; Cf., Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes v. United States, 175 Ct. Cl. 451 (1966), cert. denied, 3…
  • United States v. Mescalero Apache Tribe, 207 Ct. Cl. 369 (Ct. Cl. 1975).published
    See United States v. Alcea Band of Tillamooks, 341 U.S. 48, 49 (1951); Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes v. United States, 175 Ct. Cl. 451 , 454 (1966), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 921 . * * * [Emphasis supplied.] [Id. at 770-71, 369 F. 2…
  • Mitchell v. United States, 229 Ct. Cl. 1 (Ct. Cl. 1981).published
    See, e.g., United States v. Alcea Band of Tillamooks, 341 U.S. 48, 49 (1951).
  • Richerson v. Jones, 551 F.2d 918 (3d Cir. 1977).published
Show 5 more citing cases
Other citing cases12 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Show 2 more citing cases
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES
v.
ALCEA BAND OF TILLAMOOKS Et Al.
281.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Apr 9, 1951.
Published opinion
341 U.S. 48
1951 U.S. LEXIS 2019
Solicitor General Perlman argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Assistant Attorney General Vanech, Stanley M. Silverberg, Roger P. Marquis, Fred W, Smith and Marvin J. Sonosky., L. A. Gravelle and Edward F. Howrey argued the cause for respondents. With them on the brief were Douglas Whitlock and John G. Mullen.
Jackson.
Cited by 132 opinions  |  Published
Per Curiam.

The facts leading to this controversy are fully set forth in United States v. Alcea Band of Tillamooks, 329 U. S. 40 (1946), where this Court affirmed a judgment of the Court of Claims that certain named Indian tribes “are entitled to recover” compensation for the taking of original Indian title by the United States in 1855. The amount of recovery was reserved expressly for the further proceedings which are before the Court in this case. After the affirmance, the Court of Claims heard evidence on the amount of recovery and entered a judgment for the value of the lands as of 1855 plus interest from that[*49] date. 115 Ct. Cl. 463, 87 F. Supp. 938. We granted cer-tiorari limited to the question presented by the award of interest. 340 U. S. 873 (1950).

It is the “traditional rule” that interest on claims against the United States cannot be recovered in the absence of an express provision to the contrary in the relevant statute or contract. 28 U. S. C. (Supp. III) § 2516 (a). United States v. Thayer-West Point Hotel Co., 329 U. S. 585, 588 (1947), and cases cited therein. This rule precludes an award of interest even though a statute should direct an award of “just compensation” for a particular taking. United States v. Goltra, 312 U. S. 203 (1941). The only exception arises when the taking entitles the claimant to just compensation under the Fifth Amendment. Only in such cases does the award of compensation include interest. Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. United States, 261 U. S. 299 (1923); United States v. Thayer-West Point Hotel Co., supra.

Looking to the former opinions in this case, we find that none of them expressed the view that recovery was grounded on a taking under the Fifth Amendment. And, since the applicable jurisdictional Act, 49 Stat. 801 (1935), contains no provision authorizing an award of interest, such award must be

Reversed.

Mr. Justice Jackson took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.