25 C.F.R. § 162.108
What are BIA's responsibilities in administering and enforcing agricultural leases?
(a) We will ensure that tenants meet their payment obligations to Indian landowners, through the collection of rent on behalf of the landowners and the prompt initiation of appropriate collection and enforcement actions. We will also assist landowners in the enforcement of payment obligations that run directly to them, and in the exercise of any negotiated remedies that apply in addition to specific remedies made available to us under these or other regulations.
(b) We will ensure that tenants comply with the operating requirements in their agricultural leases, through appropriate inspections and enforcement actions as needed to protect the interests of the Indian landowners and respond to concerns expressed by them. We will take immediate action to recover possession from trespassers operating without an agricultural lease, and take other emergency action as needed to preserve the value of the land.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2008–2021 · leading case: Oenga v. United States, 91 Fed. Cl. 629 (Fed. Cl. 2010).
Oenga v. United States, 91 Fed. Cl. 629 (Fed. Cl. 2010). “They point specifically to 25 C.F.R. § 162.108 (b), which requires that BIA “ensure that tenants comply with the operating requirements in their lease through appropriate inspections and enforcement actions as needed to protect the interests of the Indian landowners”; § 162 .”
Hollywood Mobile Estates Ltd. v. Seminole Tribe, 641 F.3d 1259 (11th Cir. 2011). “(b) We will ensure that tenants comply with the operating requirements in their leases, through appropriate inspections and enforcement actions as needed to protect the interests of the Indian land *1270 owners and respond to concerns expressed by them. We will take immediate…”
Confederated Tribes & Bands of the Yakama Nation v. United States, 89 Fed. Cl. 589 (Fed. Cl. 2009). “¶ 20 (quoting 25 C.F.R. § 162.108 (a)). Importantly, the complaint also suggests that the Secretary allowed the statute of limitations for judicial enforcement to expire, thus barring the BIA’s ability to collect the Lease’s unpaid balance through a judicial action for money…”
Burrell v. Armijo, 603 F.3d 825 (10th Cir. 2010). “108 is titled "What are BIA’s responsibilities in administering and enforcing leases” and provides: (a) We will ensure that tenants meet their payment obligations to Indian landowners, through the collection of rent on behalf of the landowners and the prompt initiation of…”
Wapato Heritage, L.L.C. v. United States, 637 F.3d 1033 (9th Cir. 2011). “owned land on behalf of: (1) Persons who are non compos mentis; (2) Orphaned minors; (3) The undetermined heirs of a decedent’s estate; (4) The heirs or devisees to individually owned land who have not been able to agree upon a lease during the three-month period immediately…”
Oenga v. United States, 83 Fed. Cl. 594 (Fed. Cl. 2008). “623 ; see also 25 C.F.R. § 162.108 (entitled “What are BIA's responsibilities in administering and enforcing leases?”) ("[BIA] will ensure that the tenants comply with the operating requirements in their leases, through appropriate inspections and enforcement actions as needed…”
Grondal v. United States, 682 F. Supp. 2d 1203 (E.D. Wash. 2010). “25 C.F.R. § 162.108 is entitled “What are BIA’s responsibilities in administering and enforcing leases?” It states in relevant part: (b) We will ensure that tenants comply with the operating requirements in their leases, through appropriate inspections and enforcement actions as…”
Garreaux v. United States, 544 F. Supp. 2d 885 (D.S.D. 2008). “25 C.F.R. § 162.108 . [¶ 29] Any decisions taken by the BIA, with certain exceptions, under these regulations are appealable pursuant to 25 C.”
Grondal v. United States of Am. (E.D. Wash. 2021). “Wapato 15 Heritage points to 25 C.F.R. § 162.108 (2009), part of the corresponding regulations 16 to the Indian Long-Term Leasing Act2, as establishing a regulatory responsibility 17 imposed upon and allegedly breached by the BIA.”
Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians v. Davis, 728 F. Supp. 2d 1287 (D. Utah 2010). “See 25 C.F.R. §§ 162.108 , 162.615-23. In disapproving Plaintiffs’ lease, the DOI appears to identify two different problems that would interfere with its ability to enforce the terms of that agreement on the Skull Valley Band’s behalf.”
Hollywood Mobile Estates Ltd. v. Seminole Tribe (11th Cir. 2011). “25 C.F.R. § 162.108 . The Eighth Circuit has held that a nontribal lessee of Indian land lacked standing to sue the Secretary of the Interior under section 415 because Congress intended section 415 “to protect only Native American interests,” Rosebud Sioux Tribe, 286 F.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.