Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation

Court of Claims

Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation

212 Ct. Cl. 587, 1977 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 141

CourtUnited States Court of Claims

DecidedJanuary 27, 1977

DocketNo. 87-74

StatusPublished

This text of 212 Ct. Cl. 587 (Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation, 212 Ct. Cl. 587, 1977 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 141 (cc 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Indian claims; fiduciary obligation of Government to Indians; standard of care. — The Tribes sue the United States to recover sums which the former paid to three enrolled tribal members in accordance with agreements entered into by the Tribes and the individual Indians, with the approval of the Government, for purchase by the Tribes of the Indians’ interests in certain Indian trust land situated within the reservation. When the agreements were made and the money paid, the Government’s land records showed that each of the three Indians held an undivided one-third interest in the beneficial ownership of the subject portion of trust land. The Tribes’ theory is that the Government (acting through an Examiner of Inheritance, Department of the Interior) breached its duty by failing to meet the standard of “great care” mandated in United States v. Mason, 412 U.S. 391, 398 (1973), when it entered an order in December 1959, containing factual findings, determining that an enrolled member of the Tribes (Mrs. Ragsdale), who disappeared in late 1948, was presumed dead and that her heirs were her three children. In 1972 it was established that Mrs. Ragsdale was alive and the Tribes restored her name to the tribal roll. In 1973 the order determining the heirs was vacated and the deeds executed in favor of the Tribes were vacated. In a recommended opinion filed September 10,1976 Senior Trial Judge Mastín G. White concluded that the Government did not breach its fiduciary duty of “great care” and that plaintiff-Tribes is not entitled to recover. This case came before the court on defendant’s motion that the court adopt the recommended decision. On January 27, 1977 the court, by order, adopted the decision as the basis for its judgment in this case that plaintiff is not entitled to recover, and dismissed the petition.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Indian claims; fiduciary obligation of Government to Indians; standard of care. — The Tribes sue the United States to recover sums which the former paid to three enrolled tribal members in accordance with agreements entered into by the Tribes and the individual Indians, with the approval of the Government, for purchase by the Tribes of the Indians’ interests in certain Indian trust land situated within the reservation. When the agreements were made and the money paid, the Government’s land records showed that each of the three Indians held an undivided one-third interest in the beneficial ownership of the subject portion of trust land. The Tribes’ theory is that the Government (acting through an Examiner of Inheritance, Department of the Interior) breached its duty by failing to meet the standard of “great care” mandated in United States v. Mason, 412 U.S. 391, 398 (1973), when it entered an order in December 1959, containing factual findings, determining that an enrolled member of the Tribes (Mrs. Ragsdale), who disappeared in late 1948, was presumed dead and that her heirs were her three children. In 1972 it was established that Mrs. Ragsdale was alive and the Tribes restored her name to the tribal roll. In 1973 the order determining the heirs was vacated and the deeds executed in favor of the Tribes were vacated. In a recommended opinion filed September 10,1976 Senior Trial Judge Mastín G. White concluded that the Government did not breach its fiduciary duty of “great care” and that plaintiff-Tribes is not entitled to recover. This case came before the court on defendant’s motion that the court adopt the recommended decision. On January 27, 1977 the court, by order, adopted the decision as the basis for its judgment in this case that plaintiff is not entitled to recover, and dismissed the petition.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

212 Ct. Cl. 587, 1977 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 141, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/confederated-salish-kootenai-tribes-of-the-flathead-reservation-cc-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack