Affiliated Ute Citizens of State of Utah v. United States, 175-68.
| Decision Date | 12 November 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 175-68.,175-68. |
| Citation | 431 F.2d 1349 |
| Parties | AFFILIATED UTE CITIZENS OF the STATE OF UTAH, an unincorporated association formed by and under the supervision of the Secretary of the Department of the Interior pursuant to Public Law 83-671 (25 U.S.C. §§ 677-677aa) composed of 490 so-called "mixed-blood" members of the Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation, Utah, suing on its own behalf and as representative of and for and on behalf of its 490 members and their heirs and legal representatives as a class; and the 490 so-called "mixed-blood" members of the Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation, Utah, individually and as an identifiable Indian group or band, Appellant, v. The UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Parker M. Nielson, Salt Lake City, Utah (Adam M. Duncan, Salt Lake City, Utah, on the brief), for appellant.
Edmund B. Clark, Atty., Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (Glen E. Taylor, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., and Roger P. Marquis, Atty., Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., on the brief), for appellee.
Before LEWIS, Chief Judge, SETH, Circuit Judge, and BRATTON, District Judge.
This is an action wherein the plaintiff seeks to have conveyed to its individual members, "pro rata," a portion of the oil, gas, and minerals underlying the Uintah and Ouray Reservation in Utah.
The plaintiff is an unincorporated association organized for and on behalf of some 490 mixed-bloods who were formerly or may be now members of the Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation. The Congress enacted Public Law No. 83-671 (25 U.S.C. §§ 677-677aa) which provides for the termination of the trust relationship with the mixed-blood members of this Ute Tribe and for the distribution to them of certain tribal property. The terms of this statute and its execution have been described at some length in the companion cases, Reyos et al. v. United States of America, 10 Cir., 431 F.2d 1338, and it is not necessary to describe them further in this opinion.
The termination statute mentions specifically that the interest of the mixed-blood group in the gas, oil, and other minerals and in certain unadjudicated claims was not to be distributed pursuant to the statute. The mixed-bloods' share of this interest constitutes some 27.1686 per cent thereof, the balance being retained by or on behalf of the full-blood members of the Tribe.
The trial court held that it did not have jurisdiction to entertain this action by reason of the fact that it was an unconsented suit against the United States. It further indicated that the termination statute by the provision above referred to precluded any relief to the plaintiff. The plaintiff took an appeal from the dismissal of its complaint and of its action by the trial court.
On this appeal the appellant urges that the action may be maintained pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 345. This statutory provision provides that an Indian may bring suit against the United States wherein he seeks to gain possession of an allotment when he has...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Felter v. Salazar
...(10th Cir.1970), and consolidated it with a related case in which the Court had also granted certiorari, Affiliated Ute Citizens v. United States, 431 F.2d 1349 (10th Cir.1970), which raised the issue of whether the UDC or the AUC was the authorized representative of the mixed-bloods for th......
-
Aleut League v. Atomic Energy Commission
...nature of the interest asserted by plaintiff does not resemble that described in the statutes. See Affiliated Ute Citizens of State of Utah v. United States, 431 F.2d 1349 (10th Cir. 1970). 28 U.S.C. § 1331 provides in part that District Courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil ......
-
Murdock v. Ute Indian Tribe of Uintah and Ouray Reservation
...case. In Affiliated Ute, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in and consolidated two Tenth Circuit cases, Affiliated Ute Citizens v. United States, 431 F.2d 1349 (10th Cir.1970), and Reyos v. United States, 431 F.2d 1337 (10th Cir.1970), and decided them together. Although the AUC sponsore......
-
Maldonado v. Hodel, Civ. No. 86-C-1050G.
...Id. at 935. In this case, however, plaintiffs have not named the successors in office as defendants. 10 Affiliated Ute Citizens v. United States, 431 F.2d 1349 (10th Cir.1970). 11 The Supreme Court The Ute Partition Act was the result of proposals initiated by the tribe itself. See H.R.Rep.......