25 U.S.C. § 371
Descent of land
For the purpose of determining the descent of land to the heirs of any deceased Indian under the provisions of section 348 of this title, whenever any male and female Indian shall have cohabited together as husband and wife according to the custom and manner of Indian life the issue of such cohabitation shall be, for the purpose aforesaid, taken and deemed to be the legitimate issue of the Indians so living together, and every Indian child, otherwise illegitimate, shall for such purpose be taken and deemed to be the legitimate issue of the father of such child: Provided, That the provisions of this Act shall not be held or construed as to apply to the lands commonly called and known as the “Cherokee Outlet.”
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases, 1966–2000 · leading case: Smith v. Babbitt
Smith v. Babbitt (2000)
“3 The ALJ nevertheless determined that plaintiffs were legitimate pursuant to federal law, 25 U.S.C. § 371 , and thus heirs of the decedent for purposes of distribution of WELSA compensation.”
Tooahnippah v. Hickel (1970)
“795 , 25 U. S. C. § 371 , if Chahsenah had died intestate his putative daughter, Dorita High Horse, would have been an heir at law, whether or not her parents were married.”
Osborne v. Babbitt (1995)
“In that order, the ALJ expressly stated that, based on 25 U.S.C. § 371 , Eaves would be treated as Roland Osborne’s legitimate issue and thus was entitled to a share of decedent’s estate.”
George Kicking Woman v. Donald P. Hodel, Secretary of the Interior, and Leo Lee Old Person (1989)
“” This determination disposed of the controversy between Leo and George because 25 U.S.C. § 371 mandates that natural offspring of any customary marriage or cohabitation between Indian allottees are deemed legitimate offspring, and that for purposes of intestate succession to…”
Eskra v. Morton (1975)
“Plaintiff’s final position is that 25 U.S.C. § 371 should be interpreted to permit illegitimate Indian children to inherit through their mothers as well as their fathers.”
Atewooftakewa v. Udall (1967)
“1 The sole basis for denying approval is that the will failed to make provision for the intervenor, who was determined by the Secretary to be the decedent’s daughter born out of wedlock, *466 and as such to be entitled to inherit the entire estate as decedent’s sole heir in the…”
Perkins v. Lake County Department of Utilities (1994)
“§ 182 ; descent and distribution of tribal property, 25 U.S.C. § 371 ; and allotment of land, 25 U.”
Attocknie v. Udall (1966)
“Plaintiff additionally contends that 25 U.S.C. § 371 6 requires that an illegitimate Indian child must be recognized as the heir of its natural father.”
Eskra v. Morton (1974)
“In an interim order dated July 17, 1973, I invited comment from counsel on the applicability of 25 U.S.C. § 371 to plaintiff’s claim. § 371 provides that under certain circumstances, illegitimate Indian children are to be considered as legitimate children for the purpose of 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.