25 U.S.C. § 339
Tribes excepted from certain provisions
The provisions of this act shall not extend to the territory occupied by the Cherokees, Creeks, Choctaws, Chickasaws, Seminoles, and Osage, Miamies and Peorias, and Sacs and Foxes, in Oklahoma, nor to any of the reservations of the Seneca Nation of New York Indians in the State of New York, nor to that strip of territory in the State of Nebraska adjoining the Sioux Nation on the south added by Executive order.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8
cases, 1939–2020 · leading case: Osage Nation v. Irby
Osage Nation v. Irby (2010)
“25 U.S.C. § 339 . In 1907, Oklahoma became a state, and the Osage reservation was incorporated into the new state as Osage County as provided for in the Oklahoma Enabling Act.”
St. Marie v. United States (1940)
“The General Allotment Act was intended to be and was a general act relating to all Indian reservations, except certain ones named in § 8, 25 U.S.C.A. § 339 . The Mission Indian reservations were not excepted, undoubtedly because at that time no reservations for the Mission…”
Perkins v. Commissioner (2020)
“See 25 U.S.C. § 339 . Furthermore, the Seneca Nation’s land remains held in fee simple by the Nation itself; it is neither “allotted” to nor held in trust for any individual member by the United States Government.”
United States v. Anna B. Hallam (1962)
“388 , 391, 25 U.S.C.A. § 339 ), provided specifically that the Act should not extend to the territory occupied by ten different tribes in the “Indian Territory.”
United States v. Erie County (1939)
“It is the claim of the government that assessments in the form laid were in effect assessments against the land and the dwelling thereon; that the dwelling and land could not be separated in the assessment.”
Witt v. United States (1982)
“25 U.S.C. § 339 . Allotment of the lands of these tribes was accomplished by agreements between the United States and the tribes in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.”
Muscogee (Creek) Nation v. Hodel (1987)
“391 (codified at 25 U.S.C. § 339 ). The increasing number of white settlers also presented problems for the Creek courts in the late nineteenth century.”
Arenas v. United States (1956)
“Ct. at page 1228. Interesting to note at this juncture is the fact that Congress has provided that the Federal statute, 25 U.”
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.