All persons who are in whole or in part of Indian blood or descent who are entitled to an allotment of land under any law of Congress, or who claim to be so entitled to land under any allotment Act or under any grant made by Congress, or who claim to have been unlawfully denied or excluded from any allotment or any parcel of land to which they claim to be lawfully entitled by virtue of any Act of Congress, may commence and prosecute or defend any action, suit, or proceeding in relation to their right thereto in the proper district court of the United States; and said district courts are given jurisdiction to try and determine any action, suit, or proceeding arising within their respective jurisdictions involving the right of any person, in whole or in part of Indian blood or descent, to any allotment of land under any law or treaty (and in said suit the parties thereto shall be the claimant as plaintiff and the United States as party defendant); and the judgment or decree of any such court in favor of any claimant to an allotment of land shall have the same effect, when properly certified to the Secretary of the Interior, as if such allotment had been allowed and approved by him, but this provision shall not apply to any lands now held by either of the Five Civilized Tribes, nor to any of the lands within the Quapaw Indian Agency: Provided, That the right of appeal shall be allowed to either party as in other cases.
Notes of Decisions
Nahno-Lopez v. Houser, 625 F.3d 1279 (10th Cir. 2010).
· cites it 6× “The district court had subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 345 and appellate jurisdiction arises under 28 U.”
K2 Am. Corp. v. Roland Oil & Gas, LLC, 653 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2011).
· cites it 5× “3 The district court’s order alluded to the possibility that K2 could sue under 25 U.S.C. § 345 , but that provision does not apply here.”
United States v. Mottaz, 476 U.S. 834 (1986).
· cites it 5× “She claimed jurisdiction under 25 U. S. C. § 345 , 28 U. S. C. §§1331 , 1346, 1353, and 2415, and the Fifth Amendment.”
Nichols v. Rysavy, 610 F. Supp. 1245 (D.S.D. 1985).
· cites it 6× “1 Nichols 16) 1917 rules of issuing fee patents without application to allottees of one-half Indian blood or less does not constitute denial of equal protection 17) Failure to state claim — no constitutionally protected vested right to have an allotment held in trust for 25…”
Atkinson v. Haldane, 569 P.2d 151 (Alaska 1977).
· cites it 2× “That section creates a cause of action in district court for any person of Indian blood who alleges an unlawful denial or exclusion from an allotment. [4] See Lohnes v. Cloud, 366 F.”
Jachetta v. United States, 653 F.3d 898 (9th Cir. 2011).
· cites it 3× “Here, Jachetta points to several statutes that he claims waive the sovereign immunity of the United States: (1) the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”); (2) 25 U.S.C. § 345 , which authorizes actions for Native allotments; (3) 25 U.”
United States v. Genevieve Pierce, Carrie Pierce McCoy Anna Pierce, Ruth Carmichael Nee Urton, Marcus Pete, Jr., & Elizabeth Pete, 235 F.2d 885 (9th Cir. 1956).
· cites it 5× “Appellees in the district court, members of the Band, filed a complaint for declaratory relief jurisdiction of the district court under Title 25 U.S. C.A. § 345; Title 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1353 , 2201, in which they severally sought adjudication of their claims that they were entitled…”
Nahno-lopez v. Houser, 627 F. Supp. 2d 1269 (W.D. Okla. 2009).
· cites it 8× “§ 202 ; — Title 25 U.S.C. § 345 ; — Title 25 U.S.C. § 348 ; — Title 25 U.”
United States v. Lowry, 512 F.3d 1194 (9th Cir. 2008).
· cites it 3× “Ultimately, he determined that the court lacked jurisdiction pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 345 to consider the denial of the allotment application and further found that Lowry was not deprived of due process because she had voluntarily opted not to pursue an action in the district…”
Begay v. Pub. Serv. Co. of NM, 710 F. Supp. 2d 1161 (D.N.M. 2010).
· cites it 2× “§ 1331 , and the General Allotment Act, 25 U.S.C. § 345 , and assert that the Federal Defendants have waived sovereign immunity under 5 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.