UNITED STATES
v.
ALCEA BAND OF TILLAMOOKS ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Interest cannot be awarded on claims against the United States unless expressly provided by statute or contract, or if the claim arises from a Fifth Amendment taking.
The Court of Claims awarded compensation for land taken in 1855, including interest. This Court had previously affirmed the entitlement to compensatio…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Fifth Amendment Just Compensation cases and more on FLexlaw
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 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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (43 total)
-
Fed. Crop Ins. Corp. v. Deerfield Groves Co., 195 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967)…gainst the defendant company. Absent the element of constructive fraud, the rule seems to be that interest is not chargeable generally against a governmental instrumentality such as defendant company. United States v. Alcea Band of Tillamooks, 1951, 341 U.S. 48, 71 S.Ct. 552, 95 L.Ed. 738; United States v. Worley, 1930, 281 U.S. 339, 50 S.Ct. 291, 74 L.Ed. 887. Regarding the trial court’s requirement that an attorney’s fee be paid by defendant company under the provisions of F.S. Sec. 627.0127 F.S.A., we…
-
Glidden Co. v. Zdanok, 370 U.S. 530 (U.S. 1962)…I. They sit [*599] to determine “cases” or “controversies.” But Article I courts have no such restrictions. They need not be confined to “cases” or “controversies” but can dispense legislative largesse. See United States v. Tillamooks, 329 U. S. 40; 341 U. S. 48. Their decisions may affect vital interests; yet like legislative bodies, zoning commissions, and other administrative bodies they need not observe the same standards of due process required in trials of Article III “cases” or “controversies.” See B…
-
Library OF Congress v. Shaw, 478 U.S. 310 (U.S. 1986)…the traditional legal rule regarding the immunity of the United States from interest. See, e. g., Tillson v. United States, 100 U. S. 43, 47 (1879); United States v. N. Y. Rayon Importing Co., 329 U. S. 654, 658 (1947); United States v. Tillamooks, 341 U. S. 48, 49 (1951). In cases not in the Court of Claims, this Court has reaffirmed the notion: “Apart from constitutional requirements, in the absence of specific provision by contract or statute, or ‘express consent ... by Congress,’ interest does not run…
Previewing 3 of 43 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. v. United States, 261 U.S. 299 (U.S. 1923)
- United States v. Thayer-West Point Hotel Co., 329 U.S. 585 (U.S. 1947)
- United States v. Goltra, 312 U.S. 203 (U.S. 1941)
- United States v. Alcea Band of Tillamooks, 329 U.S. 40 (U.S. 1946)
- Shub v. Simpson, 340 U.S. 873 (U.S. 1950)
- Myers v. United States, 340 U.S. 873 (U.S. 1950)