25 U.S.C. § 101
Payment for wagon transportation
All wagon transportation from the point where delivery is made by the last common carrier to the agency, school, or elsewhere, and between points on the reservation or elsewhere, shall be paid from the funds appropriated or otherwise available for the support of the school, agency, or other project for which the supplies to be transported are purchased.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2015–2026 · leading case: Ocean Tomo, LLC v. Barney
Ocean Tomo, LLC v. Barney (2015)
“Ocean Tomo’s motion for partial summary judgment is based on this theory as Ocean Tomo seeks a finding that the patents at issue in this case are invalid pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 101 because they do not claim patentable subject matter.”
Alliance of Artists and Recording Companies, Inc. v. Denso International America (2020)
“Because a “phonorecord” is an object in which sounds – but not necessarily “only sounds,” 17 25 U.S.C. § 101 – are fixed, a reproduction of a phonorecord would typically qualify as a phonorecord, even if the output had other data fixed in it, so the word “another” did not impose…”
VROOM, INC. v. SIDEKICK TECHNOLOGY, LLC (2022)
“On September 27, 2021, Plaintiffs answered Defendant’s counterclaims and asserted several affirmative defenses thereto, including that the Patents- in-Suit were each directed to ineligible subject matter under 25 U.S.C. § 101 . ECF No. 26. Following the close of the pleadings,…”
ThroughPuter, Inc. v. Amazon Web Services, Inc. (2023)
“While it might be unlikely that two entities independently invented similar or identical technology, for reasons explained below, the undersigned finds that it is improper to dismiss ThroughPuter’s claims based on 25 U.S.C. § 101 . ThroughPuter has adequately pleaded…”
United States v. Town of Lac Du Flambeau (2025)
“25 U.S.C. § 101 (a)(33). Congress’s decision makes sense: under the TTP, a Tribe is eligible for federal funding—paid for by taxpayers—so long as the roads listed on the Inventory are open and available for public use.”
Anderson, Gordon v. Newland, Bryan (2025)
“25 U.S.C. § 101 (a)(33). Congress’s decision makes sense: under the TTP, a Tribe is eligible for federal funding—paid for by taxpayers—so long as the roads listed on the Inventory are open and available for public use.”
Vroom, Inc.; Vroom Automotive, LLC d/b/a Vroom, d/b/a Texas Direct Auto; Carstory, LLC; and Vast.com, Inc. v. Sidekick T (2026)
“8,650,093; 8,744,925: 9,123,075; 9,141,984: 9,147,216: 9,460,467; 9,626,704; 9,665,897; 10,140,655; 10,223,720; 10,223,722; and 10,796,362, counterclaims, inchiding that the Patents-in-Suit were each directed to ineligible subject matter under 25 U.S.C. § 101 . ECF No. 26, This…”
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.