25 C.F.R. § 162.209

When can BIA grant an agricultural lease on behalf of an Indian landowner?

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) We may grant an agricultural lease on behalf of:

(1) Individuals who are found to be non compos mentis by a court of competent jurisdiction;

(2) Orphaned minors;

(3) The undetermined heirs and devisees of deceased Indian owners;

(4) Individuals who have given us a written power of attorney to lease their land; and

(5) Individuals whose whereabouts are unknown to us, after reasonable attempts are made to locate such individuals; and

(6) The individual Indian landowners of fractionated Indian land, when necessary to protect the interests of the individual Indian landowners.

(b) We may grant an agricultural lease on behalf of all of the individual Indian owners of a fractionated tract, where:

(1) We have provided the Indian landowners with written notice of our intent to grant a lease on their behalf, but the Indian landowners are unable to agree upon a lease during a three-month negotiation period immediately following such notice, or any other notice period established by a tribe under § 162.203(c) of this subpart; and

(2) The land is not being used by an Indian landowner under § 162.104(b) of this part.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2006–2021 · leading case: Fredericks v. United States, 125 Fed. Cl. 404 (Fed. Cl. 2016).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Fredericks v. United States, 125 Fed. Cl. 404 (Fed. Cl. 2016). · cites it 2× “As part of this rulemaking, the Interior Department promulgated 25 C.F.R. § 162.209 (a)(3), which provides that BIA “may grant an agricultural lease on behalf of .”

Craig Thorstenson v. Gale Norton, 440 F.3d 1059 (8th Cir. 2006). “25 C.F.R. § 162.209 (a)(3). Thus, the BIA engaged in competitive bidding to establish the fair annual rental rate.”

Moody v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2017). · cites it 2× “25 C.F.R. § 162.209 . 4 it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, it must dismiss the action.”

Olson v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2021). “214 ), 14 (citing 25 C.F.R. § 162.209 ); ECF No. 34-26 at 12 (citing 25 C.”

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.