28 U.S.C. § 1353
Indian allotments
The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action involving the right of any person, in whole or in part of Indian blood or descent, to any allotment of land under any Act of Congress or treaty.
The judgment in favor of any claimant to an allotment of land shall have the same effect, when properly certified to the Secretary of the Interior, as if such allotment had been allowed and approved by him; but this provision shall not apply to any lands held on or before
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 63
cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1954–2025 · leading case: K2 Am. Corp. v. Roland Oil & Gas, LLC, 653 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2011).
K2 Am. Corp. v. Roland Oil & Gas, LLC, 653 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2011). “Section 345 and its companion statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1353 , 9 concern suits by *1033 persons who are “in whole or in part of Indian blood or descent.”
Sarah Pence v. Thomas S. Kleppe, Individually & as Sec'y of the Interior of the United States & His Agents, & the United States of Am., 529 F.2d 135 (9th Cir. 1976). “§ 345 , 28 U.S.C. §§ 1353 (Indian allotments), 1331 (federal question), 1346(a)(2) (Tucker Act), 1361 (mandamus), and 2201-02 (declaratory judgment), and under 5 U.”
Stanley F. Cermak, Sr. & Raymond Cermak, Sr. v. Bruce Babbitt, Sec'y of Interior, 234 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “The court also determined that 28 U.S.C. § 1353 does not confer it with jurisdiction over their claims because their claims do not concern an allotment of land, as required by that statute.”
United States v. Mottaz, 476 U.S. 834 (1986). “§345 and 28 U. S. C. § 1353 ; and the Tucker Act, 28 U.”
Lynch v. Household Fin. Corp., 405 U.S. 538 (1972). “§ 1352 ; cases involving Indian allotments, 28 U. S. C. § 1353 ; and injuries under federal law, 28 U.”
Johnnie Louis McAlpine v. United States of Am. & Bureau of Indian Affairs, 112 F.3d 1429 (10th Cir. 1997). “McAlpine argues that judicial review of the Secretary’s decision to deny his request for trust status is available both under the APA and 28 U.S.C. § 1353 , which provides federal court jurisdiction over civil actions relating to Indian allotments.”
Jachetta v. United States, 653 F.3d 898 (9th Cir. 2011). “To the extent Ja-chetta identifies 28 U.S.C. § 1353 as yet another source of an alleged waiver of the government’s sovereign immunity, we need not analyze this source separately.”
Krause v. Neuman, 943 P.2d 1328 (Mont. 1997). “2d 1292 , and determined it was precluded by federal law, specifically 28 U.S.C. §§ 1353 and 1360, from exercising jurisdiction.”
Albert Pinkham, Sr. Cyrus Wilkinson Connie Allen Moore Francis Allen v. Lewiston Orchards Irrigation Dist., & United States of Am., 862 F.2d 184 (9th Cir. 1988). “§ 345 and 28 U.S.C. § 1353 . Id. at 651 . We reasoned that section 345 was not limited to actions seeking to compel the issuance of an allotment in the first instance, but also served to protect the interests and rights of an Indian in his allotment after he acquired it.”
Irene Mitchell Pallin v. United States of Am. & Edward Elmer Mitchell, Jr., 496 F.2d 27 (9th Cir. 1974). “§ 345 4 and 28 U.S.C. § 1353 , 5 Irene brought the present suit against the United States and her brother 6 in the District Court for the Northern District of California claiming that she had been wrongfully denied her right to an allotment by the Government and that the…”
Pence v. Morton, 391 F. Supp. 1021 (D. Alaska 1975). “28 U.S.C. § 1353 (See 25 U.S. C. § 345) gives the district courts jurisdiction of any civil action involving the right of a person of Indian descent to an allotment of land under any Act of Congress or treaty.”
Seifert v. Udall, 280 F. Supp. 443 (D. Mont. 1968). “2 The jurisdiction of the District Court, relative to Indian allotments, is mentioned in two sections of the code, 28 U.S.C. § 1353 , 62 Stat. 934 3 and 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.