United States v. Alcea Band of Tillamooks

Supreme Court

United States v. Alcea Band of Tillamooks

341 U.S. 48, 71 S. Ct. 552, 95 L. Ed. 2d 738, 95 L. Ed. 738, 1951 U.S. LEXIS 2019

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedApril 9, 1951

Docket281

StatusPublished

Cited by132 cases

This text of 341 U.S. 48 (United States v. Alcea Band of Tillamooks) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Alcea Band of Tillamooks, 341 U.S. 48, 71 S. Ct. 552, 95 L. Ed. 2d 738, 95 L. Ed. 738, 1951 U.S. LEXIS 2019 (1951).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The facts leading to this controversy are fully set forth in United States v. Alcea Band of Tillamooks, 329 U. S. 40 (1946), where this Court affirmed a judgment of the Court of Claims that certain named Indian tribes “are entitled to recover” compensation for the taking of original Indian title by the United States in 1855. The amount of recovery was reserved expressly for the further proceedings which are before the Court in this case. After the affirmance, the Court of Claims heard evidence on the amount of recovery and entered a judgment for the value of the lands as of 1855 plus interest from that *49 date. 115 Ct. Cl. 463, 87 F. Supp. 938. We granted cer-tiorari limited to the question presented by the award of interest. 340 U. S. 873 (1950).

It is the “traditional rule” that interest on claims against the United States cannot be recovered in the absence of an express provision to the contrary in the relevant statute or contract. 28 U. S. C. (Supp. III) § 2516 (a). United States v. Thayer-West Point Hotel Co., 329 U. S. 585, 588 (1947), and cases cited therein. This rule precludes an award of interest even though a statute should direct an award of “just compensation” for a particular taking. United States v. Goltra, 312 U. S. 203 (1941). The only exception arises when the taking entitles the claimant to just compensation under the Fifth Amendment. Only in such cases does the award of compensation include interest. Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. United States, 261 U. S. 299 (1923); United States v. Thayer-West Point Hotel Co., supra.

Looking to the former opinions in this case, we find that none of them expressed the view that recovery was grounded on a taking under the Fifth Amendment. And, since the applicable jurisdictional Act, 49 Stat. 801 (1935), contains no provision authorizing an award of interest, such award must be

Reversed.

Mr. Justice Jackson took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

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

Per Curiam.

The facts leading to this controversy are fully set forth in United States v. Alcea Band of Tillamooks, 329 U. S. 40 (1946), where this Court affirmed a judgment of the Court of Claims that certain named Indian tribes “are entitled to recover” compensation for the taking of original Indian title by the United States in 1855. The amount of recovery was reserved expressly for the further proceedings which are before the Court in this case. After the affirmance, the Court of Claims heard evidence on the amount of recovery and entered a judgment for the value of the lands as of 1855 plus interest from that *49 date. 115 Ct. Cl. 463, 87 F. Supp. 938. We granted cer-tiorari limited to the question presented by the award of interest. 340 U. S. 873 (1950).

It is the “traditional rule” that interest on claims against the United States cannot be recovered in the absence of an express provision to the contrary in the relevant statute or contract. 28 U. S. C. (Supp. III) § 2516 (a). United States v. Thayer-West Point Hotel Co., 329 U. S. 585, 588 (1947), and cases cited therein. This rule precludes an award of interest even though a statute should direct an award of “just compensation” for a particular taking. United States v. Goltra, 312 U. S. 203 (1941). The only exception arises when the taking entitles the claimant to just compensation under the Fifth Amendment. Only in such cases does the award of compensation include interest. Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. United States, 261 U. S. 299 (1923); United States v. Thayer-West Point Hotel Co., supra.

Looking to the former opinions in this case, we find that none of them expressed the view that recovery was grounded on a taking under the Fifth Amendment. And, since the applicable jurisdictional Act, 49 Stat. 801 (1935), contains no provision authorizing an award of interest, such award must be

Reversed.

Mr. Justice Jackson took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

34 Fair empl.prac.cas. 1447, 35 Fair empl.prac.cas. 1520, 34 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 34,379, 35 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 34,754 Rebecca Mae Cross v. United States Postal Service the Board of Governors of the United States Postal Service M.A. Wright R.E. Holding Charles H. Codding William A. Irvine Crocker Nevin Hayes Robertson and Benjamin F. Bailar

733 F.2d 1327 (Eighth Circuit, 1984)

Munoz v. Orr

559 F. Supp. 1017 (W.D. Texas, 1983)

Milner v. Bolger

546 F. Supp. 375 (E.D. California, 1982)

United States v. 2,175.86 ACRES OF LAND, ETC.

520 F. Supp. 75 (E.D. Texas, 1981)

Norman E. Holly v. Robert E. Chasen, Commissioner of Customs

639 F.2d 795 (D.C. Circuit, 1981)

Etta B. SAUNDERS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Graham CLAYTOR, Jr., Secretary of the Navy, Et Al., Defendants-Appellants

629 F.2d 596 (Ninth Circuit, 1980)

United States v. 59.29 ACRES OF LAND, ETC.

495 F. Supp. 212 (E.D. Texas, 1980)

Barbara J. deWEEVER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellant

618 F.2d 685 (Tenth Circuit, 1980)

Margaret Toomer Blake v. Joseph A. Califano, Secretary of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare

626 F.2d 891 (D.C. Circuit, 1980)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

341 U.S. 48, 71 S. Ct. 552, 95 L. Ed. 2d 738, 95 L. Ed. 738, 1951 U.S. LEXIS 2019, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-alcea-band-of-tillamooks-scotus-1951.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack