25 U.S.C. § 324

Consent of certain tribes; consent of individual Indians

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

No grant of a right-of-way over and across any lands belonging to a tribe organized under the Act of June 18, 1934 (48 Stat. 984), as amended [25 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.]; the Act of May 1, 1936 (49 Stat. 1250); or the Act of June 26, 1936 (49 Stat. 1967), shall be made without the consent of the proper tribal officials. Rights-of-way over and across lands of individual Indians may be granted without the consent of the individual Indian owners if (1) the land is owned by more than one person, and the owners or owner of a majority of the interests therein consent to the grant; (2) the whereabouts of the owner of the land or an interest therein are unknown, and the owners or owner of any interests therein whose whereabouts are known, or a majority thereof, consent to the grant; (3) the heirs or devisees of a deceased owner of the land or an interest therein have not been determined, and the Secretary of the Interior finds that the grant will cause no substantial injury to the land or any owner thereof; or (4) the owners of interests in the land are so numerous that the Secretary finds it would be impracticable to obtain their consent, and also finds that the grant will cause no substantial injury to the land or any owner thereof.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 26 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1974–2024 · leading case: Public Service Co. of New Mexico v. Barboan

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Public Service Co. of New Mexico v. Barboan (2017) ca10 · cites it 3× “” 25 U.S.C. § 324 . The regulations stemming from the 1948 Act affirm the necessity for tribal consent.”

Oneida Tribe of Indians v. Village of Hobart (2008) wied · cites it 3× “” 25 U.S.C. § 324 . Based on the plain language of § 476(e), as confirmed by the 1948 Act, the Tribe argues that no disposition of its property, including by condemnation, can occur without its consent.”

JoAnn Chase v. Andeavor Logistics, L.P. (2021) ca8 · cites it 2× “25 U.S.C. § 324 . The pipeline began operating in 1953 after the BIA (to which the Secretary has delegated this authority) granted Andeavor’s predecessor a twenty-year right-of-way.”

Swinomish Indian Tribal Cmty. v. Bnsf Railway Company (2020) ca9 “” 25 U.S.C. § 324 . Such consent “may impose restrictions or conditions” on the grant of a right-of-way.”

Begay v. Public Service Co. of NM (2010) nmd “3 , 25 U.S.C. § 324 sets forth the instances when consent of the owner or owners is not required.”

Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community v. Rogers (1991) ariz “25 U.S.C. § 324 . After an agreement is reached as to compensation, the consideration is paid as a lump sum to the Secretary.”

Plains Electric Generation and Transmission Cooperative, Inc. v. Pueblo of Laguna and United States of America (1976) ca10 “] 25 U.S.C. § 324 : No grant of a right-of-way over and across any lands belonging to a tribe organized under sections 461-473 and 474-479 of this title [The Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, 48 Stat.”

Del Rio Drilling Programs, Inc. v. United States (1996) uscfc · cites it 2× “25 U.S.C. § 324 (hereafter “Section 324”).”

Marlys Bear Medicine v. United States ex rel. Secretary of the Department of Interior (2001) ca9 “§ 406 ; 25 U.S.C. § 324 (limiting the BIA’s ability to grant right-of-ways across Indian lands without the owner or tribe’s permission); 25 C.”

Swift Transportation, Inc. v. John (1982) azd “25 U.S.C. § 324 ; 25 C.F.R. § 161.3 . Plaintiffs assert without contradiction that consent was obtained in this case.”

Blackfeet Indian Tribe v. Montana Power Co. (1988) ca9 · cites it 2× “” 25 U.S.C. § 324 , 62 Stat. 18 . Additionally, the 1948 Act provided that: “Sections 323 and 328 of this title shall not in any manner amend or repeal the provisions of the Federal Water Power Act, .”

Brown v. United States (1996) cafc “25 U.S.C. § 324 provides that the Secretary-may grant rights-of-way without the consent of individual Indian owners if: 1) the owners are so numerous that it would be impracticable to obtain their consent and the grant will cause no substantial injury to the land or any owner;…”

Show all 26 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.