18 U.S.C. § 1160

Property damaged in committing offense

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 18 CasesGoogle Scholar

Whenever a non-Indian, in the commission of an offense within the Indian country takes, injures or destroys the property of any friendly Indian the judgment of conviction shall include a sentence that the defendant pay to the Indian owner a sum equal to twice the just value of the property so taken, injured, or destroyed.

If such offender shall be unable to pay a sum at least equal to the just value or amount, whatever such payment shall fall short of the same shall be paid out of the Treasury of the United States. If such offender cannot be apprehended and brought to trial, the amount of such property shall be paid out of the Treasury. But no Indian shall be entitled to any payment out of the Treasury of the United States, for any such property, if he, or any of the nation to which he belongs, have sought private revenge, or have attempted to obtain satisfaction by any force or violence.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1976–2023 · leading case: United States v. Zenon Hernandez

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

United States v. Zenon Hernandez (1990) ca10 “…who has filed a nonfrivolous amnesty application may stay deportation pending final determination on the application. 18 U.S.C. §§ 1160 (d) & 1255a(e). Interpreting § 1160(b)(5) & (6) and § 1255a(c)(4) & (5) in a manner which prohibited the Attorney General from disclosing…”

Coosewoon v. Meridian Oil Co. (1994) ca10 · cites it 2× “Plaintiffs next contend the district court erred in dismissing Count V of their complaint which alleged Meridian committed negligence per se through its alleged violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1160 . The district court dismissed Plaintiffs’ claim because “none of Plaintiffs’ claims…”

Mark David Oliphant v. Edward Schlie, Chief of Police of the City of Bremerton, Defendant (1976) ca9 “In certain instances such compensation is to be paid by the United States treasury. The section provides, however, that no such compensation is to be paid where the victim “or any of the nation to which he belongs, have sought private revenge, or have attempted to obtain…”

Flores v. American Family Insurance (2023) wiwd “Flores expressly alleges a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1160 , but that statute doesn’t create a private right of action.”

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.