Whenever any nontaxable land of a restricted Indian of the Five Civilized Tribes or of any other Indian tribe is sold to any State, county, or municipality for public-improvement purposes, or is acquired, under existing law, by any State, county, or municipality by condemnation or other proceedings for such public purposes, or is sold under existing law to any other person or corporation for other purposes, the money received for said land may, in the discretion and with the approval of the Secretary of the Interior, be reinvested in other lands selected by said Indian, and such land so selected and purchased shall be restricted as to alienation, lease, or incumbrance, and nontaxable in the same quantity and upon the same terms and conditions as the nontaxable lands from which the reinvested funds were derived, and such restrictions shall appear in the conveyance.
Notes of Decisions
Prieto v. United States, 655 F. Supp. 1187 (D.D.C. 1987).
· cites it 2× “1 Plaintiff applied to the BIA to have this land accepted into trust under the provisions of 25 U.S.C. § 409a (1986), 2 presumably in order that the land be exempt from local taxes as well as from the Highway Beautification Act, 23 U.”
Leading Fighter v. Cnty. of Gregory, 230 N.W.2d 114 (S.D. 1975).
· cites it 2× “It is further argued that the lots are tax exempt under 25 U.S.C.A. § 409a. [3] Originally, § 409a applied only to the Five Civilized Tribes.”
Est. of Bruner v. Bruner, 338 F.3d 1172 (10th Cir. 2003).
“See 25 U.S.C. § 409a (authorizing restriction of land purchased with funds derived from condemnation of restricted land).”
Frazier v. Goddard, 63 F. Supp. 696 (E.D. Okla. 1945).
· cites it 2× “474 , 25 U.S.C. § 409a, 25 U.S.C.A. § 409a. The United States is also interested in protecting the preferential right of the Secretary of the Interior to purchase the land at the sale for another Indian, as provided in § 2 of the Act of June 26, 1936, 49 Stat.”
Thlocco v. Magnolia Petroleum Co., 141 F.2d 934 (5th Cir. 1944).
“, and none has been proved”, and the record fully supports this finding. Act of May 27, 1908, 35 Stat.”
Shade v. Downing, 333 U.S. 586 (1948).
“474 , 25 U. S. C. § 409a. And there is a further interest in protecting the preferential right of the Secretary of the Interior to purchase the land for another Indian under § 2 of the Act of June 26, 1936, 49 Stat.”
Grand River Dam Auth. v. Parker, 40 F. Supp. 82 (N.D. Okla. 1941).
“In its capacity as trustee for the Indians it is necessarily interested in the outcome of the suit — in the amount to be paid. That it is interested, also, in what shall be done with the proceeds is illustrated by the Act of June 30, 1932, c.”
Oklahoma Gas & Elec. Co. v. United States, 609 F.2d 1365 (10th Cir. 1979).
· cites it 2× “If the proceeds are reinvested in other land as provided by 25 U.S.C. § 409a, 3 the replacement land becomes subject to the trust.”
Clinkenbeard v. United States, 109 F.2d 730 (10th Cir. 1940).
“1471 [25 U.S.C.A. § 409a]), and the regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior.”
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.