v. United States, No. 102-63 (Cl.Ct. July 25, 1989)). The court also refused the government’s request to substitute a tribal entity for the individually-named plaintiffs and to apply the Distribution Act to the judgment because “there [was] no functioning ... tribal organization,” and “substitution of such a nonfunctioning entity” would impair prompt resolution of the case. Short v. United States, 661 F.2d 150, 155 (Ct.Cl.1981). Although this ease bears a similarity to Short in that plaintiffs are not suing as part of a federally-recognized entity, the plaintiffs are an identifiable group. At a minimum, the lineal descendants of the loyal Mdewakanton are identifiable under the terms of the Appropriations Acts and the two censuses. See, e.g., Chippewa Cree Tribe, 69 Fed.Cl. at 670-74 (<HOLDING>); Peoria Tribe of Indians of Okla. v. United
holding change of beneficiary effective where city employee listed a new beneficiary for his group life insurance policy in an employee personal data form next to the words designated beneficiary even though this did not comply with the policy terms holding that discretionary action of secretary of the interior in ratifying and approving amendments to a tribal constitution and bylaws was not subject to judicial review holding that beneficiaries of judgment fund constituted an identifiable group where beneficiary class was defined by statute and rolls prepared by the secretary of interior holding that a contract beneficiary may be liable in restitution where the beneficiary by his conduct induces the conferral of the benefit holding that a tribal council was a necessary party in a suit challenging the councils designation by the secretary of interior as the beneficiary of reservation property