A right of way for a railway, telegraph, and telephone line through any Indian reservation in any State or Territory, except Oklahoma, or through any lands reserved for an Indian agency or for other purposes in connection with the Indian service, or through any lands which have been allotted in severalty to any individual Indian under any law or treaty, but which have not been conveyed to the allottee with full power of alienation, is granted to any railroad company organized under the laws of the United States, or of any State or Territory, which shall comply with the provisions of sections 312 to 318 of this title and such rules and regulations as may be prescribed thereunder: Provided, That no right of way shall be granted under said sections until the Secretary of the Interior is satisfied that the company applying has made said application in good faith and with intent and ability to construct said road, and in case objection to the granting of such right of way shall be made, said Secretary shall afford the parties so objecting a full opportunity to be heard: Provided further, That where a railroad has heretofore been constructed, or is in actual course of construction, no parallel right of way within ten miles on either side shall be granted by the Secretary of the Interior unless, in his opinion, public interest will be promoted thereby: Provided, also, That as a condition precedent to each and every grant of a right of way under authority of said sections, each and every railway company applying for such grant shall stipulate that it will construct and permanently maintain suitable passenger and freight stations for the convenience of each and every town site established by the Government along said right of way.
Notes of Decisions
Swinomish Indian Tribal Cmty. v. Bnsf Ry. Co., 951 F.3d 1142 (9th Cir. 2020).
“Burlington Northern stated in its application that it was instead applying under the “Act of March 2, 1899,” 25 U.S.C. § 312 (“1899 Act”). The 1899 Act provided for grants of rights-of-way for railroads through Indian reservations.”
United States v. S. Pac. Transp. Co., 543 F.2d 676 (9th Cir. 1976).
· cites it 5× “990 (codified at 25 U.S.C. § 312 ). Southern Pacific contends that it acquired a right-of-way under the 1899 Act upon its becoming effective either by: (1) construction of the railroad in 1882, or (2) “de facto” compliance with the requirements of the Act in 1881 and 1882.”
S. Pac. Transp. Co. v. Watt, 700 F.2d 550 (9th Cir. 1983).
· cites it 3× “The district court held that the 1899 Act grants to a railroad the power of eminent domain to condemn rights-of-way through Indian reservations and that “[t]he concept of tribal consent as a pre-condition to the grant of a right-of-way is the very antithesis of the exercise of…”
United States v. Joseph Joshua Jackson, 697 F.3d 670 (8th Cir. 2012).
“990 (now codified at 25 U.S.C. § 312 ). The 1905 Act was enacted, after the railroad began operations, “to enable [the railroad] to acquire some more land for further terminal facilities.”
Swinomish Indian Tribal Cmty. v. BNSF Ry. Co., 228 F. Supp. 3d 1171 (W.D. Wash. 2017).
“Burlington Northern filed an application with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (“BIA”) for a railroad right of way across the reservation, arguing that its right was established by the Act of *1175 March 2,1899, 25 U.S.C. § 312 . Dkt. # 33-1 at 24. The Tribe objected, and the…”
Burlington N. R.R. v. Fort Peck Tribal Exec. Bd., 701 F. Supp. 1493 (D. Mont. 1988).
“990 ( 25 U.S.C. § 312 ). Prior to the 1899 Act railroad rights-of-way through reservations were granted piecemeal, either by treaty provision, or by special statute providing for compensation to the Secretary of the Interior for the benefit of the Indians.”
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.