25 U.S.C. § 677i

Omitted

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 25 CasesGoogle Scholar

[omitted]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19 cases, 1972–2012 · leading case: Affiliated Ute Citizens of Utah v. United States, 406 U.S. 128 (1972).
Affiliated Ute Citizens of Utah v. United States, 406 U.S. 128 (1972). · cites it 13× “Section 10, 25 U. S. C. § 677i, stated that when the final membership rolls had been published, the tribal business committee, representing the full-bloods, and the "authorized representatives" of the mixed-bloods were to "commence a division of the assets of the tribe that are…”
United States v. Felter, 546 F. Supp. 1002 (D. Utah 1982). · cites it 5× “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.S.C. § 677i (1976), which would then be distributed in some manner to individuals, 25 U.”
Ute Distrib. Corp. v. Sec'y of the Interior of the United States, 584 F.3d 1275 (10th Cir. 2009). · cites it 3× “” 25 U.S.C. § 677i. 2 This step was to be carried out by “[t]he [T]ribal [B]usiness [C]ommittee representing the full-blood group, and the authorized representatives of the mixed-blood group.”
Ute Distrib. Corp., a Utah Corp. v. Ute Indian Tribe, 149 F.3d 1260 (10th Cir. 1998). · cites it 2× “(alteration in original) (quoting 25 U.S.C. § 677i). In support of its ruling that the tribe was not immune from suit, the district court further concluded that allowing the Tribe to assert immunity “would contradict the overriding national interest of ensuring that federal…”
Maldonado v. Hodel, 683 F. Supp. 1322 (D. Utah 1988). · cites it 5× “” 25 U.S.C. § 677i. A plan for division and distribution of these assets was adopted by both the mixed-blood and full-blood groups and approved by the Secretary pursuant to 25 U.”
Felter, Oranna v. Kempthorne, Dirk, 473 F.3d 1255 (D.C. Cir. 2007). “” 25 U.S.C. § 677i. Upon completion of the partition process, the statute instructs the Secretary to “immediately transfer to [each “mixed-blood” Ute] unrestricted control of all other property held in trust for such mixed-blood member by the United States,” and terminate…”
Hackford v. First Sec. Bank of Utah, N. A., 521 F. Supp. 541 (D. Utah 1981). · cites it 2× “§ 677i provides in part as follows: “The tribal business committee representing the full-blood group, and the authorized representatives of the mixed-blood group, within sixty days after the publication of the final membership roll, as provided in § 677g of this title, shall…”
Hackford v. Babbitt, 14 F.3d 1457 (10th Cir. 1994). · cites it 2× “” 25 U.S.C. § 677i. Tribal assets were defined by the Partition Act to include, “any property of the tribe, real, personal or mixed, whether held by the tribe or by the United States in trust for the tribe, .”
United States v. Oranna Bumgarner Felter, 752 F.2d 1505 (10th Cir. 1985). “25 U.S.C. § 677i. The Government contends that “neither the Magistrate nor the district court focused upon [§ 677d], and the consequences with respect to hunting and fishing rights it clearly has.”
Ute Distrib. Corp. v. United States, 721 F. Supp. 1202 (D. Utah 1989). · cites it 2× “Further, § 10 of the 1954 Act, 25 U.S.C. § 677i, itself contemplates and provides specifically for the non-allocation of that interest.”
Ute Distrib. Corp. v. Sec'y of the Interior of the United States, 934 F. Supp. 1302 (D. Utah 1996). · cites it 2× “Such a result would frustrate the purpose of the Act by effectively allowing the Tribe to exclude the mixed-bloods’ representative, the UDC, from participating in the joint management of the indivisible assets, and would clearly run counter to the plain language of the UPA…”
Ute Distrib. Corp. v. Norton, 43 F. App'x 272 (10th Cir. 2002). “(quoting 25 U.S.C. § 677i; emphasis added). These “indivisible assets” remained in trust for the benefit of the full-blood and mixed-blood groups and were to be “managed jointly by the Tribal Business Committee [the authorized representative of the full-blood members] and the…”
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.