25 U.S.C. § 194
Trial of right of property; burden of proof
In all trials about the right of property in which an Indian may be a party on one side, and a white person on the other, the burden of proof shall rest upon the white person, whenever the Indian shall make out a presumption of title in himself from the fact of previous possession or ownership.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 33
cases, 1975–2019 · leading case: Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe, 442 U.S. 653 (1979).
Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe, 442 U.S. 653 (1979). “§ 2126, as set forth in 25 U. S. C. § 194 , a 145-year-old, but seldom used, statute that provides: "In all trials about the right of property in which an Indian may be a party on one side, and a white person on the other, the burden of proof shall rest upon the white person,…”
State of New York v. Shinnecock Indian Nation, 686 F.3d 133 (2d Cir. 2012). “For that conclusion, the district court relied on 29 25 U.S.C. § 194 , which provides that: 30 31 In all trials about the right of property in which an 32 Indian may be a party on one side, and a white person 33 on the other, the burden of proof shall rest upon the 34 white…”
Will v. Michigan Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989). “Omaha Tribe, supra , we followed this rule in construing the phrase "white person" contained in 25 U. S. C. § 194 , enacted as Act of June 30, 1834, 4 Stat.”
Sheppard v. Sheppard, 655 P.2d 895 (Idaho 1982). “The court held that even assuming the provisions of 25 U.S.C. § 194 were controlling, plaintiff George Sheppard had overcome *900 any presumption granted the defendant by said section 194.”
United States v. Wilson, 433 F. Supp. 57 (N.D. Iowa 1977). “§ 194 , which reads: In all trials about the right of property in which an Indian may be a party on one side, and a white person on the other, the burden of proof shall rest upon the white person, whenever the Indian shall make out a presumption of title in himself from the fact…”
Countyof Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation of NY, 470 U.S. 226 (1985). “683 ; see 25 U. S. C. § 194 . Thus, Congress apparently contemplated suits by Indians asserting their property rights.”
United States v. Wilson, 523 F. Supp. 874 (N.D. Iowa 1981). “4 The State asserts it is not bound by the Court of Appeals’ decision quieting tribal title to the eastern Barrett Survey lands, since that decision was based upon the failure of other defendants to meet their burden of proof under 25 U.S.C. § 194 . That decision “does not…”
Mashpee Tribe v. New Seabury Corp., Mashpee Tribe v. New Seabury Corp., Mashpee Tribe v. New Seabury Corp., Matthew B. Connolly, Etc., 592 F.2d 575 (1st Cir. 1979). “9 Appellant’s first argument, and the only one clearly presented to the trial court, 10 is that 25 U.S.C. § 194 requires the burden to shift.”
United States Ex Rel. S. Ute Indian Tribe v. Hess, 348 F.3d 1237 (10th Cir. 2003). “By applying 25 U.S.C. § 194 and the general principle that land grants are construed in favor of the United States, the district court placed the burden *1242 on the Hess family and held that the Hess family did not shoulder its burden.”
Oneida Indian Nation of NY v. City of Sherrill, NY, 145 F. Supp. 2d 226 (N.D.N.Y. 2001). “Analysis As the motion and cross-motion for summary judgment turn on a determination of the Indian Country status of the properties, a separate analysis of each will not be undertaken.”
Cayuga Indian Nation of New York v. Vill. of Union Springs, 317 F. Supp. 2d 128 (N.D.N.Y. 2004). “Citing that language, the Nation argues that here, because it has established that it has title to the Property, both the burdens of production and persuasion shift to, and rest with, defendants to show otherwise.”
Boisclair v. Superior Court, 801 P.2d 305 (Cal. 1990). “) Federal law also requires that in property disputes in which one party is non-Indian and the other Indian, the burden of proof is on the non-Indian litigant once the Indian party has shown presumption of title by virtue of previous ownership and possession.”
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.