25 U.S.C. § 84
Repealed. Pub. L. 106–568, title VIII, § 812(c)(1), Dec. 27, 2000, 114 Stat. 2917
[repealed]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3
cases, 1975–1994 · leading case: United States of Am. Ex Rel. Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Frank Rose, 34 F.3d 901 (9th Cir. 1994).
United States of Am. Ex Rel. Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Frank Rose, 34 F.3d 901 (9th Cir. 1994). “Even if that were possible, there was no assignment because there was no approval thereto as required by 25 U.S.C. § 84 . Miller and Rose, therefore, did not accede to the benefits of the Management Agreement.”
Inecon Agricorporation, a California Corp. v. Tribal Farms, Inc., an Arizona Corp., & Fort Mojave Indian Tribe, Etc., 656 F.2d 498 (9th Cir. 1981). “” 25 U.S.C. § 84 provides: “No assignment of any contract embraced by section 81 of this title or of any part of one shall be valid, unless the names of the assignees and their residences and occupations be entered in writing upon the contract, and the consent of the Secretary…”
Rogers v. Edwards, 413 F. Supp. 933 (D. Minnesota 1975). “This contract was approved by the Commissioner of Indian Affairs as required by statute, 25 U.S.C. § 84 . The contracts which the Rogers group had with their Indian clients authorized such an assignment.”
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.