25 U.S.C. § 355
Laws applicable to lands of full-blooded members of Five Civilized Tribes
The lands of full-blooded members of any of the Five Civilized Tribes are made subject to the laws of the State of Oklahoma, providing for the partition of real estate. Any land allotted in such proceedings to a full-blood Indian, or conveyed to him upon his election to take the same at the appraisement, shall remain subject to all restrictions upon alienation and taxation obtaining prior to such partition. In case of a sale under any decree, or partition, the conveyance thereunder shall operate to relieve the land described of all restrictions of every character.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 34
cases, 1931–2014 · leading case: Madruga v. Superior Court of Cal., Cnty. of San Diego, 346 U.S. 556 (1954).
Madruga v. Superior Court of Cal., Cnty. of San Diego, 346 U.S. 556 (1954). “25 U. S. C. § 355 . [16] "The rule of the civil as of the common law, that no one should be compelled to hold property in common with another, grew out of a purpose to prevent strife and disagreement: Story's Eq.”
Anderson v. O'BRIEN, 524 P.2d 390 (Wash. 1974). “606 , 25 U.S.C. § 355 . In between, of course, there has been a mass of legislation affecting Indians the tenor of which has been to gradually eliminate the Indian reservation and tribal status, and to look toward total emancipation and integration, including a conferring of…”
State Ex Rel. May v. Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma, 711 P.2d 77 (Okla. 1986). “Partition and probate of real estate: see 25 U.S.C. §§ 355 , 375; Oklahoma Indian Welfare Act: 25 U.”
Joyce Barlow v. Colgate Palmolive Co., 750 F.3d 437 (4th Cir. 2014). “5 (discussing 25 U.S.C. § 355 , which creates an exemption for certain cases involving land restrictions to the Five Civilized Tribes of Oklahoma).”
United States v. Hellard, 322 U.S. 363 (1944). “1 By § 2 of the Act of June *364 14,1918 ( 25 U. S. C. § 355 , 40 Stat. 606 ) Congress declared that such lands were “made subject to the laws of the State of Oklahoma, providing for the partition of real estate.”
Ex Parte Pero, 99 F.2d 28 (7th Cir. 1938). “14 Other examples: (1) 25 U.S.C.A. § 355 applicable only to full-bloods.”
Florence Springer v. G. L. Townsend, 336 F.2d 397 (10th Cir. 1964). “731 , 25 U.S.C.A. § 355 note, in force and effect at that time.”
Goddard v. Frazier, 156 F.2d 938 (10th Cir. 1946). “1 Hence, a judgment of the state court in a proceedings to partition restricted Indian lands to which the United States was not a party in accordance with Section 3 of the Act of April 12, 1926, 44 Stat. 239 , 240, was declared void and ineffectual to alienate the restricted…”
Grisso v. United States, 138 F.2d 996 (10th Cir. 1943). “It is argued that even though the land was restricted against alienation without the approval of the county court, and therefore the respective deeds executed by Barnett Simpson and Pearl Fisher were without effect, the judgment in the action for partition is final and cannot be…”
Frazier v. Goddard, 63 F. Supp. 696 (E.D. Okla. 1945). “313 , 25 U.S.C.A. § 355 note, Section 3 of which is as follows: “That no order, judgment, or decree in partition made, entered, or rendered subsequent to the effective date of the Act of June 14, 1918 ( 40 Stat.”
In Matter of Est. of Brown, 600 P.2d 857 (Okla. 1979). “The Five Civilized Tribes are the subject of special provision concerning restricted lands, see 25 U.S.C. § 355 . 3 . Ryburn, Cowokochee and Barnard are cases dealing with intestacy and are not definitive of devices in wills or powers of sale.”
First Nat. Bank of Holdenville v. Ickes, 154 F.2d 851 (D.C. Cir. 1946). “The District Court denied appellant’s claim for a mandatory injunction.”
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.