U.S. Code » Title 25 » Chapter CHAPTER 5— PROTECTION OF INDIANS

25 U.S.C. § 201

Penalties; how recovered

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 25 CasesGoogle Scholar

All penalties which shall accrue under title 28 of the Revised Statutes shall be sued for and recovered in an action in the nature of an action of debt, in the name of the United States, before any court having jurisdiction of the same, in any State or Territory in which the defendant shall be arrested or found, the one half to the use of the informer and the other half to the use of the United States, except when the prosecution shall be first instituted on behalf of the United States, in which case the whole shall be to their use.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 31 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1947–2021 · leading case: United States v. Cyril Plainbull Arvilla Plainbull, 957 F.2d 724 (9th Cir. 1992).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Cyril Plainbull Arvilla Plainbull, 957 F.2d 724 (9th Cir. 1992). · cites it 9× “The record contains no evidence of the Tribe’s concurrence in this lawsuit, but the United States was nonetheless authorized to file by 25 U.S.C. § 201 . 25 U.S.C. § 201 provides as follows: All penalties which shall accrue under title 28 of the Revised Statutes shall be sued…”
Woods v. Empire Health Choice, Inc., 574 F.3d 92 (2d Cir. 2009). · cites it 4× “Other qui tam provisions allow private parties to pursue persons who have violated Indian protection laws, see 25 U.S.C. § 201 , or who have falsely marked articles as patented, see 35 U.”
Stalley Ex Rel. United States v. Orlando Reg'l Healthcare Sys., Inc., 524 F.3d 1229 (11th Cir. 2008). “§ 81 (which provides a “cause of action and share of recovery against a person contracting with Indians in an unlawful manner''); 25 U.S.C. § 201 (which provides “cause of action and share of recovery against a person violating Indian protection laws”); and 35 U.”
Shekoyan v. Sibley Int'l Corp., 217 F. Supp. 2d 59 (D.D.C. 2002). “§ 81 (cause of action and share of recovery against a person contracting with Indians in an unlawful manner); 25 U.S.C. § 201 (cause of action and share of recovery against a person violating Indian protection laws); 35 U.”
In Re US Ex Rel. Hall, 825 F. Supp. 1422 (D. Minnesota 1993). · cites it 11× “§ 81 (1988); the Indian Trader Licensing Act (ITLA), 25 U.S.C. §§ 201 & 261-64 (1988); and the IGRA, 25 U.”
Michele Yates v. Pinellas Hematology & Oncology, P.A., 21 F.4th 1288 (11th Cir. 2021). “See 25 U.S.C. § 201 (providing a cause of action and share of recovery against a person who violates Indian protection laws).”
United States Ex Rel. Rockefeller v. Westinghouse Elec. Co., 274 F. Supp. 2d 10 (D.D.C. 2003). “§ 81 (cause of action and share of recovery against a person contracting with Indians in an unlawful manner); 25 U.S.C. § 201 (cause of action and share of recovery against a person violating Indian protection laws); 35 U.”
Pequignot v. Solo Cup Co., 640 F. Supp. 2d 714 (E.D. Va. 2009). · cites it 4× “§ 292 , the false patent marking statute at issue here; 25 U.S.C. § 201 , which authorizes a cause of action and a share in the recovery against a person violating Indian protection laws; and the most well-known and widely-used qui tam statute, 31 U.”
United States of Am. Ex Rel. Eleanor Chase v. Ronald Wald & Hayden Thompson, 557 F.2d 157 (8th Cir. 1977). · cites it 4× “2 The suit was brought by plaintiff as a qui tain action authorized by 25 U.S.C. § 201 to recover a civil penalty imposed by federal law for trespassing on Indian lands.”
United States ex rel. Hall v. Tribal Dev. Corp., 49 F.3d 1208 (7th Cir. 1994). · cites it 5× “Pursuant to the qui tam provision of 25 U.S.C. § 201 , 4 the plaintiffs sought to recover from defendants all civil penalties, resulting from their violations of the ITLA, as well as a forfeiture of all the gambling equipment leased to the Tribe.”
United States Ex Rel. Alderson v. Quorum Health Grp., Inc., 171 F. Supp. 2d 1323 (M.D. Fla. 2001). “§ 962 (equal shares of vessel privately armed against friendly nations); 25 U.S.C. § 201 (equal shares of recovery against person violating Indian protection laws); 26 U.”
Yellowstone Cnty., a Political Subdivision of the State of Montana v. Carl Pease, 96 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 1996). “Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 201 , the United States brought the action against the Plainbulls in federal district court.”
Show all 31 citing cases →
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.