it should have clearly stated. As was stated in A. M. Shaffer et al., Betty B. Shaffer, supra, at 301, “* * * If it is felt that the practice followed by the appellants is objectionable, the regulations should be amended to make the offerors' obligations clear." Therefore, because of the ambiguity of the regulations, an interpretation favorable to the applicant is required.
In view of the disposition of this case, the appellant's request for a hearing would serve no useful purpose and is therefore denied.
Therefore, pursuant to the authority delegated to the Board of Land Appeals by the Secretary of the Interior (211 DM 13.5; 35 F.R. 12081), the decision of the Bureau of Land Management is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
EDWARD W. STUEBING, Member.
NEWTON FRISHBERG, Chairman.
FREDERICK FISHMAN, Member.
3 To make the requirement even more explicit, the regulation, in addition to spelling out that the signature be handwritten, could have provided that signatures which were printed, stamped, typewritten, engraved, photographed, or cut from one instrument and attached to another, would not be acceptable. See 80 C.J.S. Signatures § 7.
(Note-See front of this volume for tables)
1. The prohibition against contracts involving the employment of con- vict labor as contained in Executive Order No. 325a does not apply to those cooperative agreements entered into by the Bureau of Land Management and the several States which provide for emergency manpower assistance for the suppression of fires, even though, the States may rely in part upon trained convict crews for such emergency manpower reserves--
1. Where an irrigation district acting pursuant to the Smith Act of August 11, 1916, has enforced its lien against public land in an unpatented desert land entry and has sold the land at a tax sale, the rights of the entryman and his successors are terminated and the rights of the purchaser are determined by the Smith Act-- 2. For the purpose of determining whether entered but unpatented land can be disposed of pursuant to section 6 of the Smith Act of August 11, 1916, the "irrigation works" referred to in that section are not those necessary on an individual entry to carry out irriga- tion but refer to facilities that serve the irrigation district in gen- eral, and "water of the district available for such land" means only that the entryman has a legally enforceable claim to available water even though access to it is barred by a Departmental regulation
1. States which have assumed the requisite jurisdiction over Indian country under Public Law 280 (Act of August 15, 1953, 67 Stat. 588, as amended, 18 U.S.C. section 1162 and 28 U.S.C. section 1360) or under the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (Act of April 11, 1968, 82 Stat. 77-81, 25 U.S.C. sections 1321-1322 (Supp. V, 1965– 1969)) are required by the Wholesome Meat Act of 1967 to enforce their meat inspection laws on Indian reservations if the enforce- ment does not involve the regulation of property held in trust by the United States for the benefit of the Indians. States which have not assumed the aforementioned jurisdiction over Indian country are not authorized or required by the Wholesome Meat Act of 1967 to enforce their meat inspection laws on Indian reservations unless the Secretary of the Interior were to enact regulations authorizing such enforcement under the authority granted him by the Act of February 15, 1929, 45 Stat. 1185, as amended, 25 U.S.C. section 231
1. One who acquires an interest in a desert land entry by purchase long after he entered military service cannot derive benefits from the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940 which are re- stricted to those who acquire their interest before entering mili- tary service and who file a notice of such entrance with the land office within six months of such entrance___
1. States which have assumed the requisite jurisdiction over Indian country under Public Law 280 (Act of August 15, 1953, 67 Stat. 588, as amended, 18 U.S.C. section 1162 and 28 U.S.C. section 1360) or under the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (Act of April 11, 1968, 82 Stat. 77-81, 25 U.S.C. sections 1321-1322 (Supp. V, 1965- 1969)) are required by the Wholesome Meat Act of 1967 to enforce their meat inspection laws on Indian reservations if the enforce- ment does not involve the regulation of property held in trust by the United States for the benefit of the Indians. States which have not assumed the aforementioned jurisdiction over Indian country are not authorized or required by the Wholesome Meat Act of 1967 to enforce their meat inspection laws on Indian reservations unless the Secretary of the Interior were to enact regulations authorizing such enforcement under the authority granted him by the Act of February 15, 1929, 45 Stat. 1185, as amended, 25 U.S.C. section 231
1. An application for a quitclaim deed under sec. 6 of the Act of April 28, 1930, 43 U.S.C. sec. 872, based upon a conveyance to the United States of land as a basis for lieu selection, which conveyance was made pursuant to the Act of June 4, 1897, 30 Stat. 11, 36, is properly rejected because the Act of July 6, 1960, 74 Stat. 334, precludes the Department from utilizing the 1930 act for that purpose
1. The Secretary of Agriculture is not authorized or required to conduct meat inspection programs on Indian reservations under the pro- visions of the Wholesome Meat Act of 1967, 81 Stat. 584, 21 U.S.C. sections 601-691 (Supp. V, 1965-1969).
2. States which have assumed the requisite jurisdiction over Indian country under Public Law 280 (Act of August 15, 1953, 67 Stat. 588, as amended, 18 U.S.C. section 1162 and 28 U.S.C. section 1360) or under the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (Act of April 11, 1968, 82 Stat. 77-81, 25 U.S.C. sections 1321-1322 (Supp. V, 1965-1969)) are required by the Wholesome Meat Act of 1967 to enforce their meat inspection laws on Indian reservations if the enforcement does not involve the regulation of property held in trust by the United States for the benefit of the Indians. States which have not assumed the aforementioned jurisdiction over Indian country are not authorized or required by the Wholesome Meat Act of 1967 to enforce their meat inspection laws on Indian reservations un- less the Secretary of the Interior were to enact regulations author- izing such enforcement under the authority granted him by the Act of February 15, 1929, 45 Stat. 1185, as amended, 25 U.S.C. section 231__
1. An applicant for a prospecting permit to explore for copper and other hardrock minerals is properly required to agree to certain stipula- tions as a condition precedent to the issuance of the permit when there is no showing that the requirements are unreasonable, arbitrary, or unduly onerous, and where those stipulations con- form to the Department's obligations under the National En- vironmental Policy Act of 1969_-.
1. The Director of the Bureau of Land Management upon review of the evidence relied on by a grazing district manager as justification for a proposed reallocation of grazing privileges among licensed users within the district, may properly determine that the reallo- cation should be held in abeyance pending further study even though a licensee or permittee who appeals from the district manager's decision setting forth the terms of the proposed reallo- cation is unable to show that the reallocation is inconsistent with principles of sound range management or that it would create hardships constituting such a serious impairment to the licensee's livestock operation as to give him valid grounds for objecting to the proposal-----
2. Mining claims located on lands purchased by the United States under the Act of April 8, 1935, 49 Stat. 115, and added to the Kaniksu National Forest by the Act of August 10, 1939, 53 Stat. 1347, may not be declared null and void ab initio, but the mining claimants must be afforded notice and an opportunity for hearing before the claims are subject to cancellation__.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT
1. The Board of Land Appeals has authority to reverse the fact findings of a hearing examiner even when not clearly erroneous. How- ever, where the resolution of a case depends primarily upon his findings of credibility, which in turn are based upon his reaction to the demeanor of the witnesses, and such findings are supported by substantial evidence, they will not be disturbed by the Board-- BURDEN OF PROOF
1. Government mineral examiners determining the validity of a mining claim need only examine the claim to verify whether the claimant has made a discovery; they are not required to perform discovery work, to explore or sample beyond the claimant's workings, or to rehabilitate alleged discovery cuts to establish the government's prima facie case_.
2. In a government mining contest, where the contestant has made a prima facie showing of lack of discovery, the burden of producing preponderating evidence of the existence of a valuable mineral de- posit sufficient to support a discovery is upon the claimant, and he cannot secure a determination that the claim is valid merely by attempting to discredit and impeach the government's witnesses
« iepriekšējāTurpināt » |