v3360-1050
- 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