25 U.S.C. § 229

Injuries to property by Indians

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

If any Indian, belonging to any tribe in amity with the United States, shall, within the Indian country, take or destroy the property of any person lawfully within such country, or shall pass from Indian country into any State or Territory inhabited by citizens of the United States, and there take, steal, or destroy, any horse, or other property belonging to any citizen or inhabitant of the United States, such citizen or inhabitant, his representative, attorney, or agent, may make application to the proper superintendent, agent, or subagent, who, upon being furnished with the necessary documents and proofs, shall, under the direction of the President, make application to the nation or tribe to which such Indian shall belong, for satisfaction; and if such nation or tribe shall neglect or refuse to make satisfaction, in a reasonable time not exceeding twelve months, such superintendent, agent, or subagent shall make return of his doings to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, that such further steps may be taken as shall be proper, in the opinion of the President, to obtain satisfaction for the injury.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 1968–2014 · leading case: Burrell v. Armijo

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Burrell v. Armijo (2006) ca10 · cites it 3× “§ 131 , together with 25 U.S.C. § 229 , operate as a waiver of the Pueblo’s sovereign immunity and require arbitration of their damage claims by the Secretary of the Interior.”

Kain v. Wilson (1968) sd “His recourse for the alleged damages and injuries resulting from the wrongful use and possession of land located in Indian Country by a tribal Indian defendant is in tribal court or under the claims provision of 25 U.”

United States v. Karlen (1979) sdd “” The defendant also made a contention at oral argument that 25 U.S.C. § 229 waived sovereign immunity.”

William Graven v. Barack Obama (2014) ca9 “In his complaint, Graven makes clear that he seeks relief under the discretionary portion of 25 U.S.C. § 229 . Indeed, the complaint expressly provides that the “Purpose of this Action” is to compel Defendants “to take the further steps as shall be proper in the opinion of the…”

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.