482:
172:, obligated the Chitimacha to file a claim with the commission, and extinguished their title when they did not do so. The Fifth Circuit assumed, but did not decide, that the three transactions occurred in violation of Spanish law by failing to obtain the permission of the Governor. The three transferees, although not required to file claims under the Louisiana Land Claims Act, had done so, and their claims had been upheld.
110:; un-filed claims would "“forever thereafter be barred”; no obligation was imposed on those with complete or perfect title (although they could file claims as well). The 1807 act extended the filing deadline and authorized the Board to decide claims submitted to it; the 1807 act held that un-filed claims would be extinguished "so far as they are derived from or founded on any act of Congress."
129:
189:
there "did not set up any system for filing and deciding the validity of the land claims. They did not contain a forfeiture provision." The Fifth
Circuit further held that the Chitimacaha held "incomplete title," defining incomplete title as "title which was not valid until confirmed by the United
280:
Act of May 16, 1826, 4 Stat. 168; Act of May 26, 1824, 4 Stat. 52 (extended to
Louisiana by Act of June 17, 1844, 5 Stat. 676); Act of May 11, 1820, 3 Stat. 573; Act of April 29, 1816, 3 Stat. 328; Act of April 18, 1814, 3 Stat. 139; Act of February 27, 1813, 2 Stat. 807; Act of April 14, 1812, 2
105:
The "Louisiana Land Claims Act" is the collective name given to federal land title statutes applicable to
Louisiana, passed between 1805 and 1844. The first act, passed on March 2, 1805, required all those claiming land under imperfect or incomplete title to file a claim with the
156:. The three sales, which occurred under Spanish rule, deeded land to Phillip Verret (September 10, 1794), Frederick Pellerin (October 1, 1794), and Marie Joseph (June 22, 1799). Eighty land owners were named as defendants. Judge
190:
States government." The Fifth
Circuit did not hold that all aboriginal title was incomplete title, but held that the Chitimacha's was because they had sold the land in question and actually "released possession."
163:
The
Chitimacha appealed, arguing both that Judge Davis should have recused (inter alia, because he owned land claimed by the Chitimacha, albeit not in the original complaint) and that his ruling was in error. The
863:
145:
427:
705:
61:
declared that any
Spanish grants during the disputed period, “under whatsoever authority transacted, or pretended,” were “from the beginning, null, void, and of no effect in law or equity."
795:
870:
748:
689:
165:
17:
670:
420:
451:
898:
643:
413:
117:
did not apply to purchases from
Indians under Spanish and French rule, but that Spanish and French law did apply; Congress adopted the findings of the Report.
713:
800:
471:
281:
Stat. 709; Act of March 10, 1812, 2 Stat. 692; Act of March 3, 1807, 2 Stat. 440; Act of April 21, 1806, 2 Stat. 391; Act of March 2, 1805, 2 Stat. 324.
780:
732:
858:
168:
affirmed. In addition to finding Judge Davis qualified to hear the case, the Fifth
Circuit held that the Louisiana Land Claims Acts applied to
815:
570:
436:
662:
770:
635:
599:
181:
459:
37:
Spanish law, as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, required the approval of the
Governor for the alienation of aboriginal title.
616:
805:
775:
542:
186:
176:
908:
548:
810:
152:. The land in the tract was conveyed from the tribe in three 18th century transactions, allegedly in violation of the
481:
179:, which it concluded was "very similar" to the statutes relating to Louisiana. Conversely, the Court distinguished
785:
587:
465:
149:
697:
851:
530:
107:
399:
Harry L. Coles, Jr., Applicability of the Public Land System to
Louisiana, 43 Miss. Valley Hist. Rev. 39 (1956).
113:
Nearly all of the later acts further extended the deadline. In 1816, the "Opelousas Report" concluded that the
536:
820:
875:
841:
740:
608:
402:
Francis B. Sayre, Change of Sovereignty and Private Ownership of Land, 12 Am. J. Int'l L. 475 (1918).
903:
579:
496:
58:
525:
508:
502:
153:
114:
54:
846:
825:
169:
157:
405:
892:
520:
141:
133:
128:
514:
175:
The Fifth Circuit referred to the Supreme Court's cases interpreting the
53:
In 1803, the United States purchased France's claim to Louisiana in the
148:
in July 1977 (complaint amended July 1979) claiming a large tract in
146:
United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana
127:
185:(1941), noting that the federal statutes relating to Arizona and
409:
45:
Spain relinquished its claim to Louisiana to France in 1800.
706:
County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York State
749:
City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York
690:
Oneida Indian Nation of New York v. County of Oneida
166:
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
18:
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
834:
763:
724:
681:
671:
Federal Power Commission v. Tuscarora Indian Nation
654:
627:
598:
569:
562:
489:
450:
443:
333:Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana v. Harry L. Laws Co.
318:Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana v. Harry L. Laws Co.
122:Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana v. Harry L. Laws Co.
644:United States v. Santa Fe Pacific Railroad Co.
421:
160:granted summary judgement to the landowners.
8:
472:Confederation Congress Proclamation of 1783
566:
447:
428:
414:
406:
505:(1790, 1793, 1796, 1799, 1802, and 1834)
382:
380:
370:
368:
871:Federal recognition of Native Hawaiians
859:Tribal sovereignty in the United States
223:Act of Mar. 26, 1804, 2 Stat. 283, 288.
199:
714:South Carolina v. Catawba Indian Tribe
899:Aboriginal title in the United States
733:Idaho v. Coeur d'Alene Tribe of Idaho
437:Aboriginal title in the United States
210:, 57 U.S. (16 How.) 203, 229 (1853);
7:
663:Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States
328:
326:
864:List of federally recognized tribes
636:Seneca Nation of Indians v. Christy
320:, 490 F. Supp. 164 (W.D. La. 1980).
308:Act of April 29, 1816, 3 Stat. 328.
214:, 34 U.S. (9 Pet.) 711, 740 (1835).
182:United States v. Santa Fe Pac. R.R.
460:Charter of Freedoms and Exemptions
299:Act of March 3, 1807, 2 Stat. 440.
290:Act of March 2, 1805, 2 Stat. 324.
80:Sampeyreac v. United States (1933)
69:Louisiana became a state in 1812.
14:
617:New York ex rel. Cutler v. Dibble
480:
335:, 690 F.2d 1157 (5th Cir. 1982).
271:, 58 U.S. (17 How.) 403 (1854).
543:Indian Land Claims Settlements
259:, 58 U.S. (17 How.) 23 (1854).
247:, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 222 (1833).
235:, 27 U.S. (2 Pet.) 253 (1829).
1:
549:Indian Claims Limitations Act
22:aboriginal title in Louisiana
698:Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe
537:Indian Claims Commission Act
57:. The 1804 act forming the
108:Board of Land Commissioners
925:
588:Cherokee Nation v. Georgia
466:Royal Proclamation of 1763
177:California Land Claims Act
150:St. Mary Parish, Louisiana
20:has held that there is no
478:
212:Mitchell v. United States
101:Louisiana Land Claims Act
87:Haydel v. Dufresne (1854)
73:Foster v. Neilson (1829)
468:(British North America)
876:Legal status of Hawaii
842:Indigenous land rights
741:Idaho v. United States
137:
136:'s ancestral territory
94:West v. Cochran (1854)
609:Fellows v. Blacksmith
462:(1629 New Netherland)
131:
909:History of Louisiana
245:Sampeyreac v. United
144:brought suit in the
580:Johnson v. McIntosh
497:Northwest Ordinance
59:Louisiana Territory
531:Reorganization Act
526:Curtis Act of 1898
503:Nonintercourse Act
257:Haydel v. Dufresne
208:Chouteau v. Molony
154:Nonintercourse Act
138:
115:Nonintercourse Act
55:Louisiana Purchase
886:
885:
759:
758:
558:
557:
386:690 F.2d at 1170.
374:690 F.2d at 1169.
362:690 F.2d at 1168.
353:690 F.2d at 1167.
344:690 F.2d at 1160.
233:Foster v. Neilson
916:
847:Aboriginal title
567:
484:
448:
430:
423:
416:
407:
387:
384:
375:
372:
363:
360:
354:
351:
345:
342:
336:
330:
321:
315:
309:
306:
300:
297:
291:
288:
282:
278:
272:
266:
260:
254:
248:
242:
236:
230:
224:
221:
215:
204:
170:aboriginal title
924:
923:
919:
918:
917:
915:
914:
913:
889:
888:
887:
882:
830:
755:
725:Rehnquist Court
720:
677:
650:
628:1890—1950
623:
594:
554:
485:
476:
439:
434:
396:
391:
390:
385:
378:
373:
366:
361:
357:
352:
348:
343:
339:
331:
324:
316:
312:
307:
303:
298:
294:
289:
285:
279:
275:
269:West v. Cochran
267:
263:
255:
251:
243:
239:
231:
227:
222:
218:
205:
201:
196:
158:W. Eugene Davis
126:
103:
67:
51:
43:
35:
30:
12:
11:
5:
922:
920:
912:
911:
906:
901:
891:
890:
884:
883:
881:
880:
879:
878:
868:
867:
866:
856:
855:
854:
844:
838:
836:
832:
831:
829:
828:
823:
818:
813:
808:
803:
798:
793:
788:
783:
778:
773:
767:
765:
761:
760:
757:
756:
754:
753:
745:
737:
728:
726:
722:
721:
719:
718:
710:
702:
694:
685:
683:
679:
678:
676:
675:
667:
658:
656:
652:
651:
649:
648:
640:
631:
629:
625:
624:
622:
621:
613:
604:
602:
596:
595:
593:
592:
584:
575:
573:
571:Marshall Court
564:
560:
559:
556:
555:
553:
552:
546:
540:
534:
528:
523:
518:
512:
506:
500:
493:
491:
487:
486:
479:
477:
475:
474:
469:
463:
456:
454:
445:
441:
440:
435:
433:
432:
425:
418:
410:
404:
403:
400:
395:
392:
389:
388:
376:
364:
355:
346:
337:
322:
310:
301:
292:
283:
273:
261:
249:
237:
225:
216:
198:
197:
195:
192:
125:
119:
102:
99:
96:
95:
89:
88:
82:
81:
75:
74:
66:
63:
50:
49:U.S. territory
47:
42:
39:
34:
31:
29:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
921:
910:
907:
905:
902:
900:
897:
896:
894:
877:
874:
873:
872:
869:
865:
862:
861:
860:
857:
853:
850:
849:
848:
845:
843:
840:
839:
837:
833:
827:
824:
822:
819:
817:
814:
812:
809:
807:
804:
802:
799:
797:
794:
792:
789:
787:
784:
782:
779:
777:
774:
772:
769:
768:
766:
762:
751:
750:
746:
743:
742:
738:
735:
734:
730:
729:
727:
723:
716:
715:
711:
708:
707:
703:
700:
699:
695:
692:
691:
687:
686:
684:
680:
673:
672:
668:
665:
664:
660:
659:
657:
653:
646:
645:
641:
638:
637:
633:
632:
630:
626:
619:
618:
614:
611:
610:
606:
605:
603:
601:
597:
590:
589:
585:
582:
581:
577:
576:
574:
572:
568:
565:
561:
550:
547:
544:
541:
538:
535:
532:
529:
527:
524:
522:
519:
516:
513:
510:
507:
504:
501:
498:
495:
494:
492:
490:United States
488:
483:
473:
470:
467:
464:
461:
458:
457:
455:
453:
449:
446:
442:
438:
431:
426:
424:
419:
417:
412:
411:
408:
401:
398:
397:
393:
383:
381:
377:
371:
369:
365:
359:
356:
350:
347:
341:
338:
334:
329:
327:
323:
319:
314:
311:
305:
302:
296:
293:
287:
284:
277:
274:
270:
265:
262:
258:
253:
250:
246:
241:
238:
234:
229:
226:
220:
217:
213:
209:
203:
200:
193:
191:
188:
184:
183:
178:
173:
171:
167:
161:
159:
155:
151:
147:
143:
135:
130:
123:
120:
118:
116:
111:
109:
100:
98:
93:
92:
91:
86:
85:
84:
79:
78:
77:
72:
71:
70:
64:
62:
60:
56:
48:
46:
40:
38:
32:
27:
25:
23:
19:
852:in Australia
821:Rhode Island
790:
747:
739:
731:
712:
704:
696:
688:
682:Burger Court
669:
661:
655:Warren Court
642:
634:
615:
607:
586:
578:
521:Diminishment
452:Colonial era
358:
349:
340:
332:
317:
313:
304:
295:
286:
276:
268:
264:
256:
252:
244:
240:
232:
228:
219:
211:
207:
202:
180:
174:
162:
139:
121:
112:
104:
97:
90:
83:
76:
68:
52:
44:
36:
33:Spanish rule
21:
15:
600:Taney Court
545:(1978–2006)
509:Removal Act
41:French rule
904:Chitimacha
893:Categories
806:New Mexico
776:California
563:Precedents
394:References
187:New Mexico
142:Chitimacha
134:Chitimacha
791:Louisiana
515:Dawes Act
65:Statehood
816:Oklahoma
811:New York
801:Michigan
764:By state
444:Statutes
835:Compare
826:Vermont
786:Indiana
28:History
781:Hawaii
771:Alaska
752:(2005)
744:(2001)
736:(1997)
717:(1986)
709:(1985)
701:(1979)
693:(1974)
674:(1960)
666:(1955)
647:(1941)
639:(1896)
620:(1858)
612:(1857)
591:(1831)
583:(1823)
551:(1982)
539:(1946)
533:(1934)
517:(1887)
511:(1830)
499:(1787)
124:(1982)
796:Maine
194:Notes
206:See
140:The
132:The
16:The
895::
379:^
367:^
325:^
24:.
429:e
422:t
415:v
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
