United States v. Mottaz

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that suits involving an Indian's interests and rights in a previously issued allotment or patent do not require the United States to be a party
• holding that suits involving an Indian’s interests and rights in a previously issued allotment or patent do not require the United States to be a party
• holding that the statute of limitations for the Quiet Title Act applies to Indians as well as to other litigants
• holding that an APA suit alleging that a governmental decision is arbitrary and capricious can be “a quiet title action sufficient to invoke the Quiet Title Act.”
• holding that an APA suit alleging that a governmental decision is arbitrary 16 and capricious can be “a quiet title action sufficient to invoke the Quiet Title Act.”
• observing that “[w]hen the United States consents to be sued, the terms of its waiver of sovereign immunity describe the extent of the court’s jurisdiction”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).