25 U.S.C. § 82

Payments under contracts; aiding in making prohibited contracts

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

No money shall be paid to any agent or attorney by an officer of the United States under any such contract or agreement, other than the fees due him for services rendered thereunder; but the moneys due the tribe, Indian, or Indians, as the case may be, shall be paid by the United States, through its own officers or agents, to the party or parties entitled thereto; and no money or thing shall be paid to any person for services under such contract or agreement, until such person shall have first filed with the Commissioner of Indian Affairs a sworn statement, showing each particular act of service under the contract, giving date and fact in detail, and the Secretary of the Interior and Commissioner of Indian Affairs shall determine therefrom whether, in their judgment, such contract or agreement has been complied with or fulfilled; if so, the same may be paid, and, if not, it shall be paid in proportion to the services rendered under the contract.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases, 1964–1997 · leading case: Law Offices of Vincent Vitale, P.C. v. Tabbytite

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Law Offices of Vincent Vitale, P.C. v. Tabbytite (1997) alaska · cites it 4× “First, she claims that 25 U.S.C. § 82 (1994) prohibits Vitale from enforcing any personal contract with Tabbytite without approval of the Secretary of the Interior.”

Stewart L. Udall, Secretary of the Interior v. Norman M. Littell (1966) cadc · cites it 3× “§ 2104 (1878), 25 U.S.C. § 82 (1964). 16 . 25 U.S.C. § 81 is derived from Acts of Mar.”

Norman M. Littell v. Rogers C. B. Morton, the Secretary of the Interior of the United States (1971) ca4 “In rejecting Littell’s claims for compensation, the Secretary was acting under the authority vested in him by 25 U.S. C.A. § 82 to approve payments for services to Indians.”

Littell v. Udall (1965) dcd · cites it 6× “Since the Court of Appeals offered no guidelines for this Court’s consideration of the “possible applicability of 25 U.S.C. § 82 (1958),” 338 F.2d at 542 , the Court will now consider this statute.”

Dodge v. First Wisconsin Trust Company (1975) wied “The plaintiffs also contend that they may recover damages on behalf of Menominee Enterprises by virtue of 25 U.S.C. §§ 82 , 463 and 479. These statutes are totally inapposite to the few facts which are alleged in the complaint.”

Stewart L. Udall, Secretary of the Interior v. Norman M. Littell (1964) cadc · cites it 2× “Since a full trial is available, we refrain from comment on the possible applicability of 25 U.S.C. § 82 (1958). Affirmed. . See 25 U.”

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.