CULPEPPER

v.

OCHELTREE

Citator

Cited By

• Town of Okemah v. United States, 140 F.2d 963 (10th Cir. 1944)
  …66 U.S. 226, 232, 45 S.Ct. 64, 69 L.Ed. 259; State of Minnesota v. United States, 305 U.S. 382, 386, Note 1, 59 S.Ct. 292, 83 L.Ed. 235. United States v. Moore, 8 Cir., 284 F. 86, 90. United States v. Bowling, 256 U.S. 484, 486, 487, 41 S.Ct. 561, 65 L.Ed. 1054. State of Minnesota v. United States, 305 U.S. 382, 388, 59 S.Ct. 292, 83 L.Ed. 235. Caesar v. Burgess, 10 Cir., 103 F. 2d 503, 506. Washington v. Miller, 235 U.S. 422, 428, 35 S.Ct. 119, 59 L.Ed. 295; Niagara Fire Ins. Co. v. Raleigh Hardware Co…
• Mitchell v. The United States, 591 F.2d 1300 (Ct. Cl. 1979)
  …883 (1956). Somewhat different is a “restricted allotment” in which the Indian holds the fee but cannot convey it without governmental approval. That was the nature of the allotment in United States v. Bowling, 256 U.S. 484, 486-87, 41 S.Ct. 561, 65 L.Ed. 1054 (1921). . Eastport spelled out that such “fair” interpretation included rights to monetary recovery granted “expressly or by implication.” See 372 F. 2d at 1007, 1008, 178 Ct.Cl. at 605, 606. . In contrast, in United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392…
• Arenas v. Preston, 181 F.2d 62 (9th Cir. 1950)
  …may take appropriate measures to make sure that it inures to the sole use and benefit of the allotee and his heirs throughout the original or any extended period of restriction.” United States v. Bowling, 1921, 258 U.S. 484, 487, 41 S.Ct. 561, 562, 65 L.Ed. 1054. “The lands, which, prior to the allotment, undoubtedly formed part of the Indian country, still retain during the trust period a distinctively Indian character, being devoted to Indian occupancy under the limitations imposed by Federal legislation…