25 U.S.C. § 462
Transferred
[transferred]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 59
cases, 1936–2015 · leading case: United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (1983).
United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (1983). “984 , 25 U. S. C. § 462 . [6] See Mitchell v. United States, 219 Ct.”
United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535 (1980). “984 , 25 U. S. C. § 462 , the United States now holds title to these lands indefinitely.”
Marceau v. Blackfeet Hous. Auth., 540 F.3d 916 (9th Cir. 2008). “" 25 U.S.C. § 462 . 2. The Mitchell Doctrine Here, Plaintiffs argue that, as tribal members, HUD owed them a trust duty and it breached that duty.”
Wolfchild v. United States, 96 Fed. Cl. 302 (Fed. Cl. 2010). “” 25 U.S.C. § 462 (quoted at Sixth Am. Compl.”
Michigan Gambling Opposition v. Kempthorne, 525 F.3d 23 (D.C. Cir. 2008). “In addition to section 5, the IRA includes numerous other provisions addressing land use and economic development; among other things, these extend tribal trusts indefinitely, 25 U.S.C. § 462 ; restore lands previously declared "surplus" to those trusts, id.”
Squire v. Capoeman, 351 U.S. 1 (1956). “" [5] The term "patent" inadequately describes respondent's interest.”
Wolfchild v. United States, 68 Fed. Cl. 779 (Fed. Cl. 2005). “” 25 U.S.C. § 462 . The Department of Interior’s practice of issuing certificates designating an assignment continued until passage of the 1980 Act.”
Yankton Sioux Tribe v. Podhradsky, 606 F.3d 994 (8th Cir. 2010). “Section 2 of that act indefinitely extended the trust period for all outstanding allotments, 48 Stat, at 984 (codified at 25 U.S.C. § 462 ), while § 4 states that “[e]x-cept as herein provided, no sale, devise, gift, exchange or other transfer of restricted Indian lands .”
Wolfchild v. United States, 62 Fed. Cl. 521 (Fed. Cl. 2004). “” 25 U.S.C. § 462 . However, a memorandum dated January 25, 1955 from the Minneapolis Area Office of the Bureau of Indian Affairs listed regulations for the issuance of such assignments that gave some effect to the Indian Reorganization Act.”
Beulah Chase v. Roland McMasters Jack Smith, Jr., Wayne Turner, Arlyn Wadholm & Russel Pederson, 573 F.2d 1011 (8th Cir. 1978). “§ 465 , but continued the trust status of restricted lands indefinitely, 25 U.S.C. § 462 , restored unallotted “surplus” lands to tribal sovereignty, 25 U.”
Gerry Conroy v. Evelyn Sybil Conroy, 575 F.2d 175 (8th Cir. 1978). “25 U.S.C. § 462 . 24 . 25 U.S.C. § 348 . Other sections, not here relevant, provide for powers of eminent domain, lease, and inheritance of trust lands.”
Cobell v. Babbitt, 91 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 1999). “See 25 U.S.C. § 462 . This new policy ended the allotment era and authorized the Secretary of the Interior to acquire land in trust for the tribes and for individual Indians.”
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.