25 U.S.C. § 312

Rights-of-way for railway, telegraph, and telephone lines; town-site stations

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

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

Cited in 16 cases, 1960–2020 · leading case: Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Pueblo of Santa Ana

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Pueblo of Santa Ana (1985) scotus · cites it 2× “990 , as amended, 25 U. S. C. § 312 (railroad, telephone, and telegraph rights-of-way); Act of Mar.”

Swinomish Indian Tribal Cmty. v. Bnsf Railway Company (2020) ca9 “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. Southern Pacific Transportation Co. (1976) ca9 · 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.”

Plains Electric Generation and Transmission Cooperative, Inc. v. Pueblo of Laguna and United States of America (1976) ca10 “For example, 25 U.S.C. § 312 provides grants of right of way, “through any Indian reservation .”

Southern Pacific Transportation Co. v. Watt (1983) ca9 · 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 (2012) ca8 “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.”

New Mexico Navajo Ranchers Ass'n v. Interstate Commerce Commission (1983) cadc · cites it 4× “IV 1980), the Indian Laws, 25 U.S.C. §§ 312 , 313 (1976), the National Historic *250 Preservation Act (“NHPA”), 16 U.”

Nebraska Public Power District v. 100.95 Acres of Land (1982) ned “990 , 25 U.S.C.A. § 312 ; 31 Stat. 1083 , 25 *598 U.”

Sand Springs Home v. State Ex Rel. Department of Highways (1975) okla “25 U.S.C.A. § 312 et seq.” The State contends, however, that such a finding was obiter dicta and the case really turned upon a question of abandonment.”

Swinomish Indian Tribal Community v. BNSF Railway Co. (2017) wawd “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 Northern Railroad v. Fort Peck Tribal Executive Board (1988) mtd “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.”

E. G. Fitzgerald v. City of Ardmore, Oklahoma, a Municipal Corporation, Willie Mae Lane v. City of Ardmore, Oklahoma, a (1960) ca10 “43 , 25 U.S.C.A. § 312 et seq. 3 . United States v.”

Show all 16 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.