A determination of the question of fact as to who are the heirs of any deceased citizen allottee of the Five Civilized Tribes of Indians who may die or may have heretofore died, leaving restricted heirs, by the probate court of the State of Oklahoma having jurisdiction to settle the estate of said deceased, conducted in the manner provided by the laws of said State for the determination of heirship in closing up the estates of deceased persons, shall be conclusive of said question: Provided, That an appeal may be taken in the manner and to the court provided by law, in cases of appeal in probate matters generally: Provided further, That where the time limited by the laws of said State for the institution of administration proceedings has elapsed without their institution, as well as in cases where there exists no lawful ground for the institution of administration proceedings in said courts, a petition may be filed therein having for its object a determination of such heirship and the case shall proceed in all respects as if administration proceedings upon other proper grounds had been regularly begun, but this proviso shall not be construed to reopen the question of the determination of an heirship already ascertained by competent legal authority under existing laws: Provided further, That said petition shall be verified, and in all cases arising hereunder service by publication may be had on all unknown heirs, the service to be in accordance with the method of serving nonresident defendants in civil suits in the district courts of said State; and if any person so served by publication does not appear and move to be heard within six months from the date of the final order, he shall be concluded equally with parties personally served or voluntarily appearing.
Notes of Decisions
Nanonka v. Heirs of Nanonka (1982)
okla · cites it 2×
“The procedure for determination of heir-ship authorized by 25 U.S.C. § 375 is limited to the ascertainment of who were the heirs of deceased.”
United States v. Anglin & Stevenson (1944)
ca10
“606 , 25 U.S.C.A. § 375 , the probate courts of Oklahoma are specifically authorized to conclusively determine the factum of heir-ship of any deceased citizen allottee of the Five Civilized Tribes who leave restricted heirs, and this suit, having been originally filed in the…”
United States v. Hellard (1944)
scotus
“1 of this Act ( 25 U. S. C. § 375 ) provides in part: “That a determination of the question of fact as to who are the heirs of any deceased citizen allottee of the Five Civilized Tribes of Indians who may die or may have heretofore died, leaving restricted heirs, by the probate…”
Dunham v. Stitzberg (1948)
nm
“An act of Congress provided that a determination of the question of heirship of certain Indians by the probate courts of Oklahoma having jurisdiction to settle their estates, is conclusive of the question ( 25 U.S.C.A. § 375 ). The Congress has plenary power over Indian property…”
Roberts v. Anderson (1933)
ca10
“606 , 25 USCA § 375) provides that: “A determination of the question of fact as to who are the heirs of any deceased citizen allottee of the Five Civilized Tribes of Indians who may die or may have heretofore died, leaving restricted heirs, by the probate court of the State of…”
Fields v. United States (1970)
cc
“” Also 25 U.S.C. § 375 (1964) provides in part: “A determination of the question of fact as to who are the heirs of any deceased citizen allottee of the Five Civilized Tribes of Indians who may die or may have heretofore died, leaving restricted heirs, by the probate court of…”
Ruff v. Hodel (1985)
ca9
“, 25 U.S.C. § 375 (state probate court “determination of the question of fact” as to heirship shall be “conclusive”); § 564n (Secretary’s “determination” that a person is non compos mentis or in need of assistance in conducting his affairs is not “final and conclusive” until a…”
Shade v. Downing (1948)
scotus
“606 , 25 U. S. C. §§ 375 , 355, 2 vested in the Oklahoma courts jurisdiction to determine heirship of restricted Indian lands and to entertain proceedings to partition such lands.”
United States v. Bond (1939)
ca10
“606 , 25 U.S.C.A. § 375 , relates to a proceeding in the county court for the purpose of determining and adjudicating the question of fact as to who are the heirs of a deceased allottee.”
In re Micco's Estate (1945)
oked · cites it 2×
“606 , 25 U.S.C.A. §§ 375 , 355. 4 The contention is now made that in a probate proceeding the Probate Court may determine the heirs of a decedent and therefore title to real estate is involved.”
Knight v. Carter Oil Co. (1927)
ca8
“1919, § 4234a [25 USCA § 375]) to determine the heirs of the allottee, and the decision of the county court was in favor of the sister and niece from whom appellee’s first title is deraigned.”
Fulsom v. Quaker Oil & Gas Co. (1928)
oknd
“; 25 USCA §§ 375, 355), conferring upon the probate courts of the state of Oklahoma jurisdiction to determine such heirship, did not repeal prior statutes giving the federal and state district courts jurisdiction over such actions.”
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.