Document Title Page

  1. Simmtrv ludgment wt prooTlv granted In thia

Court * - The appellants argue that a motion for sunmary judg-

ment was not necessary In this case and that this should have

been heard in the district court in a manner provided for in

Section 1009 of the Administrative Procedure Act Title 5 U.S.C,

particularly sub-section (e). The simple answer to this argu-

ment is that the appellants did not pursue their remedy. The

United States was required to institute this action due to the

appellants* failure to seek review of the Deputy Solicitor's

decision in the courts.

Even if the appellants were to have sought a review

in the courts, they are not entitled to a review under the pro-

visions of the Administrative Procedure Act* That Act was de-

signed to affect administrative agencies whose functions are of

a regulatory nature, unlike the Department of the Interior, which

has long been charged with the care, management, and disposition

of the public lands, including mineral lands, where the extent

of private rights, if any, depends solely on grants from Congress,

archive.org Volume Name: govuscourtsca9briefs3360

Volume: http://archive.org/stream/govuscourtsca9briefs3360

Document Link: http://archive.org/stream/govuscourtsca9briefs3360#page/n1049/mode/1up

Top Keywords (auto-generated):

claims, coleman, rock, mining, discovery, stone, mineral, department, void, sales, removed, null, vas, secretary, improvements

Top Key Phrases (auto-generated):

mining claims, building stone, valuable mineral, mineral deposit, july 23, acting director, public lands, extracted removed, claims null, administrative procedure, valid discovery, seaton supra, sand gravel, sales amounting, plenary authority

Document Status: UGLY