Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States
E582723
Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States is a 1955 U.S. Supreme Court case that denied compensable property rights to an Alaska Native group by relying on the Doctrine of Discovery to limit Indigenous land claims.
All labels observed (2)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States canonical | 1 |
| Tee-Hit-Ton Indians, et al. v. United States | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T6286558 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States Context triple: [Doctrine of Discovery, appliedInCourtCase, Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States]
-
A.
Johnson v. M’Intosh
Johnson v. M’Intosh is an 1823 U.S. Supreme Court case that established the doctrine that private individuals could not purchase lands directly from Native Americans, affirming federal supremacy over Indian land transactions and shaping American property and Indigenous land rights law.
-
B.
Standing Bear v. Crook
Standing Bear v. Crook was an 1879 U.S. federal court case in which Ponca chief Standing Bear successfully argued that Native Americans are "persons" under the law and entitled to habeas corpus rights.
-
C.
Cherokee Nation v. Georgia
Cherokee Nation v. Georgia was an 1831 U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Cherokee Nation was a "domestic dependent nation" lacking standing to sue as a foreign nation, a ruling that shaped federal Indian law and the context of Indian Removal.
-
D.
United States v. Washington
United States v. Washington is a landmark federal court case that affirmed and clarified Pacific Northwest Native American tribes’ treaty fishing rights, significantly shaping U.S. Indian law and natural resource management.
-
E.
Downes v. Bidwell
Downes v. Bidwell is a 1901 U.S. Supreme Court case that helped establish the "Insular Cases" doctrine, holding that full constitutional rights do not automatically extend to all territories under American control.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States Target entity description: Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States is a 1955 U.S. Supreme Court case that denied compensable property rights to an Alaska Native group by relying on the Doctrine of Discovery to limit Indigenous land claims.
-
A.
Johnson v. M’Intosh
Johnson v. M’Intosh is an 1823 U.S. Supreme Court case that established the doctrine that private individuals could not purchase lands directly from Native Americans, affirming federal supremacy over Indian land transactions and shaping American property and Indigenous land rights law.
-
B.
Standing Bear v. Crook
Standing Bear v. Crook was an 1879 U.S. federal court case in which Ponca chief Standing Bear successfully argued that Native Americans are "persons" under the law and entitled to habeas corpus rights.
-
C.
Cherokee Nation v. Georgia
Cherokee Nation v. Georgia was an 1831 U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Cherokee Nation was a "domestic dependent nation" lacking standing to sue as a foreign nation, a ruling that shaped federal Indian law and the context of Indian Removal.
-
D.
United States v. Washington
United States v. Washington is a landmark federal court case that affirmed and clarified Pacific Northwest Native American tribes’ treaty fishing rights, significantly shaping U.S. Indian law and natural resource management.
-
E.
Downes v. Bidwell
Downes v. Bidwell is a 1901 U.S. Supreme Court case that helped establish the "Insular Cases" doctrine, holding that full constitutional rights do not automatically extend to all territories under American control.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (49)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
United States Supreme Court case
ⓘ
federal Indian law case ⓘ property law case ⓘ |
| appliesDoctrine | Doctrine of Discovery ⓘ |
| aroseInJurisdiction | United States federal jurisdiction ⓘ |
| characterizedAs | a restrictive precedent on Indigenous property rights ⓘ |
| concernsGroup |
Alaska Natives
ⓘ
Tlingit people ⓘ |
| concernsTerritory | Alaska ⓘ |
| criticizedFor |
denial of compensation for long-standing Native use and occupancy
ⓘ
reliance on colonial-era doctrines to limit Indigenous land rights ⓘ |
| decidedUnderChiefJustice | Earl Warren ⓘ |
| denies | compensation for timber taken from lands claimed by the Tee-Hit-Ton Indians ⓘ |
| field |
United States Indian law
ⓘ
United States constitutional law ⓘ |
| hasArgumentDate | December 6, 1954 ⓘ |
| hasCitation | 348 U.S. 272 ⓘ |
| hasConcurrenceBy | Felix Frankfurter ⓘ |
| hasCourt | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| hasDecisionDate | February 7, 1955 ⓘ |
| hasDissentBy | Hugo L. Black ⓘ |
| hasDissentingVote | 1 justice ⓘ |
| hasDocketNumber | No. 86 ⓘ |
| hasFullCaseName |
Tee-Hit-Ton Indians, et al. v. United States
ⓘ
linked to:
Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States
|
| hasLegalIssue |
application of the Doctrine of Discovery to Indigenous land claims
ⓘ
scope of aboriginal title in U.S. law ⓘ whether aboriginal title of Alaska Natives is compensable under the Fifth Amendment ⓘ |
| hasMajorityOpinionBy |
Stanley F. Reed
ⓘ
linked to:
Stanley Reed
|
| hasMajorityVote | 8 justices ⓘ |
| hasPage | 272 ⓘ |
| hasPetitioner | Tee-Hit-Ton Indians ⓘ |
| hasReporter | United States Reports ⓘ |
| hasRespondent |
United States
ⓘ
linked to:
United States of America
|
| hasVolume | 348 ⓘ |
| historicalContext | pre-statehood Alaska ⓘ |
| holds |
Alaska Natives’ occupancy rights in the case were permissive and subject to the will of Congress
ⓘ
Congress may extinguish aboriginal title without paying compensation unless it has expressly recognized that title as compensable ⓘ unrecognized aboriginal title is not a compensable property right under the Fifth Amendment ⓘ |
| impactOn | subsequent Alaska Native land claims ⓘ |
| interpretsConstitution | Fifth Amendment Takings Clause ⓘ |
| involvesGovernmentAction | federal authorization of timber cutting on lands used by the Tee-Hit-Ton Indians ⓘ |
| involvesStatute | Tucker Act ⓘ |
| involvesSubject |
Indigenous land rights
ⓘ
aboriginal title ⓘ federal plenary power over Indian affairs ⓘ |
| languageUsed | described Indigenous occupancy as a "mere permission" of the sovereign ⓘ |
| precedes |
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971
ⓘ
linked to:
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
|
| reliesOnPrecedent |
Johnson v. M’Intosh
ⓘ
United States v. Santa Fe Pacific Railroad Co. ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States Description of subject: Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States is a 1955 U.S. Supreme Court case that denied compensable property rights to an Alaska Native group by relying on the Doctrine of Discovery to limit Indigenous land claims.
Referenced by (2)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.
Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States
→
hasFullCaseName
→
Tee-Hit-Ton Indians, et al. v. United States
ⓘ
linked to: Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States