Supreme Court of the United States, 1951

United States v. Alcea Band of Tillamooks

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided April 9, 1951 · Jackson

341 U.S. 48; 71 S. Ct. 552; 95 L. Ed. 2d 738; 1951 U.S. LEXIS 2019; 95 L. Ed. 738 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Solicitor General Perlman argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Assistant Attorney General Vanech, Stanley M. Silverberg, Roger P. Marquis, Fred W, Smith and Marvin J. Sonosky., L. A. Gravelle and Edward F. Howrey argued the cause for respondents. With them on the brief were Douglas Whitlock and John G. Mullen.

Cases that cite this one

115 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

Tommy Shaw v. Library of Congress (D.C. Cir. 1984)
The Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma v. The United States (Court of Claims 1966)
Ambrose Whitefoot and Minnie Whitefoot v. United States (Court of Claims 1961)
Hatter v. United States (United States Court of Federal Claims 1997)
Markey v. United States (United States Court of Federal Claims 1993)
Massman Construction Co. v. Tennessee Valley Authority (6th Cir. 1985)
Margienell S. FISCHER, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. Brock ADAMS, Defendant, Appellee (1st Cir. 1978)
Leon H. White v. Warren M. Bloomberg, Postmaster, United States Post Office Department to Be Known as the United States Postal Service (4th Cir. 1974)
Bituminous Casualty Corporation, and Cross-Appellant v. James T. Lynn, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, and Cross-Appellee (6th Cir. 1974)
The United States v. The Delaware Tribe of Indians and the Absentee Delaware Tribe of Indians (Court of Claims 1970)
The Tlingit and Haida Indians of Alaska and Harry Douglas, Intervenors v. The United States (Court of Claims 1968)
United States v. Consumers Scrap Iron Corporation (6th Cir. 1967)
United States v. Consumers Scrap Iron Corp. (6th Cir. 1967)
The Sac and Fox Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma v. The United States (Court of Claims 1964)
Farrand Optical Co., Inc. v. The United States of America (2d Cir. 1963)
Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States 1955)
Southern Pacific Transportation Co. v. United States (United States District Court for the Eastern District of California 1979)
Edwardsen v. Morton (District Court, District of Columbia 1973)
Miami Tribe Of Oklahoma v. United States (Court of Claims 1960)
Miami Tribe of Oklahoma v. United States (Court of Claims 1960)
Zuni Indian Tribe v. United States (Court of Claims 1989)
Library of Congress v. Shaw (Supreme Court of the United States 1986)
Margaret Toomer Blake v. Joseph A. Califano, Secretary of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (D.C. Cir. 1980)
Whitefoot v. United States (Court of Claims 1961)
District of Columbia v. United States (United States Court of Federal Claims 2005)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.