25 U.S.C. § 677d
Omitted
[omitted]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1972–2025 · leading case: Chapoose v. Clark, 607 F. Supp. 1027 (D. Utah 1985).
Chapoose v. Clark, 607 F. Supp. 1027 (D. Utah 1985). “The Secretary held that 25 U.S.C. § 677d precludes the plaintiffs from becoming tribe members.”
Affiliated Ute Citizens of Utah v. United States, 406 U.S. 128 (1972). “Section 5, as amended, 25 U. S. C. § 677d, provided that upon the publication of the final rolls "the tribe shall thereafter consist exclusively of full-blood members," and that mixed-blood members "shall have no interest therein except as otherwise provided" in the Act.”
Ute Distrib. Corp. v. Sec'y of the Interior of the United States, 584 F.3d 1275 (10th Cir. 2009). “25 U.S.C. § 677d. The next step in the implementation of the UPA was the “division of the assets of the [T]ribe that [we]re then susceptible to equitable and practicable distribution.”
United States v. Murdock, 919 F. Supp. 1534 (D. Utah 1996). “Mixed-blood members shall have no interest therein except as otherwise provided [in the Act],” 25 U.S.C. § 677d (emphasis added). The Act further provided for removal of federal restrictions on the property of the “mixed-bloods,” as well as termination of the federal trust…”
United States v. Oranna Bumgarner Felter, 752 F.2d 1505 (10th Cir. 1985). “” 25 U.S.C. § 677d. The Act required the division between the full-blood and the mixed-blood Utes of tribal assets “susceptible to equitable and practical distribution.”
Ute Distrib. Corp., a Utah Corp. v. Ute Indian Tribe, 149 F.3d 1260 (10th Cir. 1998). “25 U.S.C. § 677d. After the final rolls were published, the Tribal Business Committee, representing the full-blood members, and the “authorized representatives” of the mixed-blood members were directed to divide the tribal assets 4 “then susceptible to equitable and practicable…”
United States v. Felter, 546 F. Supp. 1002 (D. Utah 1982). “25 U.S.C. §§ 677d, 677g (1976). Also following such publication, both groups were to commence “a division of the assets of the tribe that are then susceptible to equitable and practicable distribution,” 25 U.”
Chapoose v. Hodel, 831 F.2d 931 (10th Cir. 1987). “In a lengthy opinion, the district court held that the Secretary’s interpretation of the 1954 Ute Partition and Termination Act, as amended in 1956, 25 U.S.C. § 677d (the Act), is plainly erroneous and cannot stand.”
Hackford v. Babbitt, 14 F.3d 1457 (10th Cir. 1994). “” 25 U.S.C. § 677d. Also following the publication of the rolls, the division of the tribal assets began “based on the relative number of persons comprising the final membership roll of each group.”
United States v. Perry Von Murdock, 132 F.3d 534 (10th Cir. 1997). “We have already noted, however, that the UTA specifically declared an end to the tribal membership of mixed-bloods once they received their share of the tribal assets, and recognized the right of the Tribe to thereafter determine new members.”
Ute Distrib. Corp. v. Sec'y of the Interior of the United States, 934 F. Supp. 1302 (D. Utah 1996). “” 25 U.S.C. § 677d. Following the publication of the rolls, tribal assets “then susceptible to equitable and practicable distribution” were partitioned, according to the relative number of each group as reflected in the final membership rolls, by the Tribal Business Committee…”
Hackford v. United States Dep't of the Interior (D. Utah 2024). “; see also 25 U.S.C. § 677d (“Effective on the date of publication of the final rolls as provided in section 677g of this title the tribe shall thereafter consist exclusively of full- blood members.”
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.