25 U.S.C. § 464
Transferred
[transferred]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 29
cases, 1955–2010 · leading case: Ashley v. United States Dep't of Interior, 408 F.3d 997 (8th Cir. 2005).
Ashley v. United States Dep't of Interior, 408 F.3d 997 (8th Cir. 2005). “§ 81 , 25 U.S.C. § 464 (which provides that government approval is needed for transfers of certain kinds of Indian property), the Act, or the government’s fiduciary duty to the Indian people.”
Douglas F. Longie v. Spirit Lake Tribe Spirit Lake Health Admin. Spirit Lake Tribe Refuse Control Servs., 400 F.3d 586 (8th Cir. 2005). “See 25 U.S.C. § 464 . Believing that the agreement would soon be finalized, Longie made improvements on the 80-acre parcel, including a road and a well.”
LaMear v. United States, 9 Cl. Ct. 562 (Ct. Cl. 1986). “action is premised on an alleged breach of fiduciary duty, as trustee, occasioned by the defendant’s failure to properly handle a 1950 voluntary exchange of Indian allotments between plaintiff’s mother-in-law, Good Victory Red Fox Spottedeagle (Spottedeagle) and another tribe…”
Yankton Sioux Tribe v. Podhradsky, 606 F.3d 994 (8th Cir. 2010). “at 985 (codified as amended at 25 U.S.C. § 464 ). The district court concluded that these provisions effectively froze any further diminishment of the Yankton Sioux Reservation, but it also concluded that the Supervised Sales Act, ch.”
Beulah Chase v. Roland McMasters Jack Smith, Jr., Wayne Turner, Arlyn Wadholm & Russel Pederson, 573 F.2d 1011 (8th Cir. 1978). “25 U.S.C. § 464 . Because many Indians who were unable to manage their allotted lands had sold them or had them sold at a tax sale, see 78 Cong.”
Leo Williams v. William P. Clark, Sec'y of the Interior, United States of Am., 742 F.2d 549 (9th Cir. 1984). ““Among the transfers that the Secretary may approve are devises to the members of the Indian tribe in which the lands .”
Yankton Sioux Tribe v. Podhradsky, 529 F. Supp. 2d 1040 (D.S.D. 2007). “In addition, the sale of allotments was restricted in 1934 under 25 U.S.C. § 464 , which stated that, “[ejxcept as provided in this Act, no sale, devise, gift, exchange, or other transfer of restricted Indian lands .”
Oglala Sioux Tribe of Pine Ridge Indian Reservation v. Hallett, 708 F.2d 326 (8th Cir. 1983). “663 (1968), requires a sale within ten years of Tail’s acquisition of one allotment which he bought under that act, with a right of first preference in the Tribe to purchase that land, in order to avoid mandatory continuation of the trust on that allotment under 25 U.S.C. § 464…”
Hydaburg Coop. Ass'n v. United States, 229 Ct. Cl. 250 (Ct. Cl. 1981). “] Thus, section 4 of the Act, 25 U.S.C. § 464 , restricted the alienation of Indian lands.”
Oglala Sioux Tribe of the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation v. United States, 21 Cl. Ct. 176 (Ct. Cl. 1990). “985 , codified as amended at 25 U.S.C. § 464 (1988) (lands may not be transferred without approval from the Secretary of the Interior); the Act of May 27, 1902, § 7, 32 Stat.”
Bear Claw Tribe, Inc. v. United States, 36 Fed. Cl. 181 (Fed. Cl. 1996). “Accordingly, section 4 of the Indian Reorganization Act, now 25 U.S.C. § 464 , restricted alienation of Indian land: Except as provided in [this Act], no sale, devise, gift, exchange, or other transfer of restricted Indian lands or of shares in the assets of any Indian tribe or…”
Cultee v. United States, 713 F.2d 1455 (9th Cir. 1983). “They argued that 25 U.S.C. § 464 required the incorporation of state law into the federal statutes that govern the validity of Indian wills.”
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.