25 U.S.C. § 334

Allotments to Indians not residing on reservations

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

Where any Indian not residing upon a reservation, or for whose tribe no reservation has been provided by treaty, act of Congress, or executive order, shall make settlement upon any surveyed or unsurveyed lands of the United States not otherwise appropriated, he or she shall be entitled, upon application to the local land office for the district in which the lands are located, to have the same allotted to him or her, and to his or her children, in quantities and manner as provided in this act for Indians residing upon reservations; and when such settlement is made upon unsurveyed lands the grant to such Indians shall be adjusted upon the survey of the lands so as to conform thereto; and patents shall be issued to them for such lands in the manner and with the restrictions as provided in sections 348 and 349 of this title. And the fees to which the officers of such local land office would have been entitled had such lands been entered under the general laws for the disposition of the public lands shall be paid to them, from any moneys in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, upon a statement of an account in their behalf for such fees by the Secretary of the Interior or such officer as he may designate, and a certification of such account to the Secretary of the Treasury by the Secretary of the Interior.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 27 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1933–2026 · leading case: Kodiak Oil & Gas (USA) Inc. v. Mary Seaworth

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Kodiak Oil & Gas (USA) Inc. v. Mary Seaworth (2019) ca8 “2d 931 (2018) ; 25 U.S.C. §§ 334 - 358. In 1909, Congress passed an act authorizing the leasing of allotted lands for "mining purposes, *1136 " including the extraction of oil and gas.”

Amos A. Hopkins (Dukes) v. United States (1969) ca9 · cites it 3× “*466 BROWNING, Circuit Judge: Each plaintiff-appellant filed an application with the Department of Interior for an Indian allotment of 160 acres of grazing lands in the public domain under section 4 of the General Allotment Act of 1887, as amended, 25 U.S.C. § 334 . Seven…”

Joseph C. Saulque v. United States of America and Cecil Andrus, Secretary of the Interior (1981) ca9 · cites it 2× “§ 336 , as well as 25 U.S.C. § 334 . Again, on May 9, 1974, his attorney corresponded with the District Manager to clarify the fact that Saulque’s application had been amended to include Lots 3 and 4.”

Irene Mitchell Pallin v. United States of America and Edward Elmer Mitchell, Jr. (1974) ca9 · cites it 6× “On July 16, 1957, Irene and her brother Edward simultaneously filed Indian allotment applications for the 160-acre tract of land under Section 4 of the General Allotment Act of 1887, as amended, 25 U.S.C. § 334 . As a result of a drawing in September 1957 to determine the…”

Sarah Pence v. Thomas S. Kleppe, Individually and as Secretary of the Interior of the United States and His Agents, and (1976) ca9 “The language of that statute, as the Secretary admits, gave the Indians an entitlement to the land and did not give complete discretion to the Secretary. However, because a number of lower courts found that Alaska Natives were not within the definition of “Indian,” there was…”

Perkins v. Commissioner (2020) ca2 · cites it 2× “388 (codified at 25 U.S.C. § 334 et seq.), created an exemption for income derived from Seneca land.”

United States v. Mary Dann Carrie Dann, United States of America v. Mary Dann Carrie Dann (1989) ca9 “The statutes favoring entry and settlement, like the provisions for Indian allotments on unappropriated public lands, see 25 U.S.C. §§ 334 , 336 (1983), were nevertheless fundamental to the Court’s conclusions in Cramer .”

Mary T. Akootchook Sergie Alexanderoff Daniel Akootchook George Akootchook Adeline Jim v. United States of America Gale (2001) ca9 “Because none of the Appellants could establish personal use independent of other family members, the IBLA’s denial of all five applications for allotments was not arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion. CONCLUSION The Department’s interpretation of its own regulation…”

Kenneth M. Kale v. The United States of America (1973) ca9 · cites it 2× “Kale filed an Indian allotment 2 petition-application for 160 acres of land pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 334 on October 6, 1966. Ninety-five of the acres were within the area applied for by Cord.”

Witt v. United States (1982) ca9 · cites it 4× “BOOCHEVER, Circuit Judge: This consolidated appeal involves entitlement to Indian land allotments under Section Four of the General Allotment Act of 1887 (the Act), 25 U.S.C. § 334 . At issue is the requirement of acquiring an eligibility certificate indicating that an ancestor…”

State of Utah, by and Through Its Division of State Lands v. Thomas S. Kleppe, Individually and as Secretary of the Inte (1978) ca10 “For other “lieu” selection statutes, see, 25 U.S.C.A. § 334 (selection rights of Indians residing off of an Indian Reservation) and 43 U.”

Perkins v. Lake County Department of Utilities (1994) ohnd “1982) (Congressional determination of who may be designated an “Indian” or a “non-Indian” for purposes of distribution of government lands to Indian tribes under the Indian General Alotment Act, 25 U.S.C. § 334 .) Those cases in which the term “Indian” has been defined by…”

Show all 27 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.