25 U.S.C. § 325
Payment and disposition of compensation
No grant of a right-of-way shall be made without the payment of such compensation as the Secretary of the Interior shall determine to be just. The compensation received on behalf of the Indian owners shall be disposed of under rules and regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1981–2022 · leading case: Begay v. Public Service Co. of NM
Begay v. Public Service Co. of NM (2010)
“PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On February 11, 2009, the Plaintiffs filed their Complaint for Equitable and Legal Relief asserting that the Department of Interior’s Bureau of Indian Affairs (“BIA”) did not fulfill its statutory obligations under 25 U.S.C. § 325 and 25 C.F.R. §§ 169.1 -.”
Strate v. A-1 Contractors (1997)
“10 Rights-of-way granted over lands of individual Indians also require payment of compensation, 25 U. S. C. § 325 , and ordinarily require consent of the individual owners, see §324 (describing circumstances in which rights-of-way may be granted without the consent of owners).”
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community v. Rogers (1991)
“25 U.S.C. § 325 (compensation is to be received by Secretary on behalf of Indian owners); see Pueblo de San Felipe v.”
Godfrey v. United States (2017)
“”): see also 25 U.S.C. § 325 (“No grant of a righbof-way shall be made without the payment of such compensation as the Secretary of the Interior shall determine to be just.”
Mitchell v. United States (1981)
“of roads on Indian reservations (to be used under Interior regulations), § 318a and (b) grants of rights-of-way over Indian land with "payment of such compensation as the Secretary of the Interior shall determine to be just” (again under Interior regulations), 25 U.”
Mitchell v. United States (1987)
“Plaintiffs contend that they were shortchanged by the BIA’s valuation approach, and therefore the Government breached its duty under 25 U.S.C. § 325 (1982) to secure fair compensation for grants of right-of-way.”
United States v. Yakima Tribal Court (1986)
“They cite the Sohappys’ allegation that, before rights-of-way can be granted over Indian trust lands, a majority of the owners must give written consent. See 25 U.”
United States v. Yakima Tribal Court of the Yakima Indian Nation and David Ward, Tribal Judge (1986)
“25 U.S.C. § 325 ; 25 C.F.R. §§ 169.12 , 169.”
Yellowfish v. City of Stillwater (1982)
““No grant of a right-of-way shall be made without the payment of such compensation as the Secretary of the Interior shall determine to be just.”
Pueblo De San Felipe v. Donald P. Hodel, Secretary of the Interior, and Pueblo of Santa Ana, Defendant-In-Intervention-A (1985)
“” 25 U.S.C. § 325 (1982). Thus the applicable statutes give the Secretary discretion to distribute the proceeds from this right-of-way in an equitable and just manner among the competing parties.”
City of Stillwater v. An Easement & Right-of-Way for Water Pipeline Purposes Across Various Tracts of Land in Noble Coun (1981)
“(Emphasis added) 25 U.S.C. § 325 requires that no grant of a right-of-way be made without “the payment of such compensation as the Secretary of the Interior shall determine to be just.”
Strate v. A-1 Contractors (1997)
“Rights-of-way granted over lands of individual Indians also require payment of compensation, 25 U.S.C. § 325 , and ordinarily require consent of the individual owners, see § 324 (describing circumstances in which rights-of-way may be granted without the consent of owners).”
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.