Any noncompetent Indian to whom a patent containing restrictions against alienation has been issued for an allotment of land in severalty, under any law or treaty, or who may have an interest in any allotment by inheritance, may sell or convey all or any part of such allotment or such inherited interest on such terms and conditions and under such rules and regulations as the Secretary of the Interior may prescribe, and the proceeds derived therefrom shall be used for the benefit of the allottee or heir so disposing of his land or interest, under the supervision of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs; and any conveyance made hereunder and approved by the Secretary of the Interior shall convey full title to the land or interest so sold, the same as if fee-simple patent had been issued to the allottee.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
10
cases, 1928–2015 · leading case:
Bacher v. Patencio, 232 F. Supp. 939 (S.D. Cal. 1964).
Bacher v. Patencio, 232 F. Supp. 939 (S.D. Cal. 1964).
· cites it 4× “What plaintiffs do claim is that 25 U.S.C. § 405 applies to this case and establishes their right to the relief sought.”
Ronald Colbert v. United States, 785 F.3d 1384 (11th Cir. 2015).
“The Congressional statement of findings present in 25 U.S.C. § 405 provides' that: The Congress, after careful review of the Federal government’s historical and special legal relationship with, and resulting responsibilities to, American Indian people, finds that — the prolonged…”
Krause v. Neuman, 943 P.2d 1328 (Mont. 1997).
“Under the Act, an allottee wishing to transfer his or her interest in Indian trust land before the expiration of the trust period must have the approval of the Secretary of the Interior, 25 U.S.C. §§ 405 ,483, and any conveyance of land, or contract concerning the same, without…”
Comenout v. Washington, 722 F.2d 574 (9th Cir. 1983).
“1917); 25 U.S.C. § 405 . . This appeal is the most recent installment in an ongoing struggle by Edward Comenout to resist payment of state cigarette taxes.”
Brooks v. Nez Perce Cnty., 394 F. Supp. 869 (D. Idaho 1975).
· cites it 2× “In ruling on the motion, however, Judge Dietrich, then District Judge, concluded that the properties remained trust properties because the original allotments had been sold pursuant to what is now 25 U.S.C. § 405 , such that the proceeds from the sale of the allotment also were…”
Spector v. Pete, 321 P.2d 59 (Cal. Ct. App. 1958).
“1018, “Non-eompetent Act” March 1, 1907, 25 U.S.C. § 405 ) and decisions based thereon that, under certain conditions, a noneompetent Indian, prior to the expiration of the trust period, is authorized to sell or convey all or part of his land, subject to the approval of the…”
Work v. Mummert, 29 F.2d 393 (8th Cir. 1928).
“” Act of March 1, 1907; 25 USCA § 405. And “the lands, or any part thereof, allotted to any Indian, * * * can be sold under existing law by authority of the Secretary of the Interior, • * * may be sold on the petition of the allottee, • * on sueh terms and conditions and under…”
Estoril Producing Corp. v. Murdock, 822 P.2d 129 (Okla. Civ. App. 1991).
· cites it 3× “25 U.S.C.A. § 405 (1983). In support of its claim that the requisite approval was not given, plaintiffs rely on an affidavit signed by Michael E.”
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.