INDIAN PROBATE-Con.
REOPENING-Con.
375.0 Generally-Con.
of the Bureau of Indian Affairs to file a petition for reopening and to ap- peal from a denial thereof under authority of 43 CFR 4.242 (d)...--
2. In the absence of compelling reasons and failure to allege the existence of a manifest injustice or how it might be corrected if reopening were permit- ted, a petition to reopen will be denied when it is filed more than three years after the final de- termination of heirs was made___..
375.1 Waiver of Time
1. Petition to reopen filed more than three years after the final determination will not be granted unless there is compelling proof that the delay was not occasioned by the lack of diligence on the part of one who is petitioning. 2. A petition to reopen filed more than three years after the final determination of heirs will not be granted unless there is compelling proof that the delay was not occasioned by the lack of diligence on the part of the petitioning party---
3. It is in the public interest
to require Indian Pro- bate proceedings be con- cluded within some rea- sonable time in order that property rights of heirs and devisees in Indian allotments be sta- bilized....
INDIAN PROBATE-Con.
REOPENING-Con.
375.1 Waiver of Time Lim-
4. To avoid perpetuating a manifest injustice, a peti- tion to reopen filed more than three years after the final determination of the heirs will be granted where compelling proof is shown that the delay was not occasioned by the lack of diligence on the part of the petitioning party-
5. Petition to reopen filed more than three years after the final determination of heirs will not be granted unless there is compelling proof that the delay was not occasioned by the lack of diligence on the part of the petitioning party.
6. It is in the public interest to require Indian probate proceedings to be con- Icluded within some rea- sonable time in order that property rights of heirs and devisees in Indian allotments be stabilized..
SECRETARY'S AUTHORITY
381.0 Generally
425.20 Proof of Will-Con. accompanying it have. been presented at the hearing to all parties present for consideration and that it is uncon- tested. Such findings may then support a conclusion that the documents meet the requirements of 43 CFR 4.233(a), and that it may be ordered ap- proved...
INDIAN TRIBES
(See also Indian Probate.)
1. "Delegation." The use of the
"delegation" in Solicitor's Opinion, M- 36803 (Apr. 3, 1970), 77 I.D. 50 (1970) inter- preting 25 U.S.C. § 48 allowing Indian tribes to "*** be given ***" direction over Federal employees, does not add substances to the argu- ment that the statute is an unconstitutional dele- gation of authority pro- hibited by Schechter Poul- try v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935) - .
2. The provisions of the Act of July 18, 1966, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2415 and 2416, limit the time in which the United States may file suits on behalf of Indians and Indian tribes which seek any of the remedies specified in the Act. The Act does not apply to suits brought by tribes or individuals with- out the assistance of the federal government, but such suits, unless they are to quiet title to trust
INDIAN TRIBES Con.
GENERALLY-Con.
or restricted land, are subject to the statute of limitation applicable generally.
3. The Navajo Tribe of Indians has standing within the Department of the Inte- rior to contest or protest against the issuance of a confirmatory patent to the State of Utah for school sections within the exterior boundary of the reservation for the Tribe.
1. There is a well-established rule of statutory con- struction to favor Indians in case of doubt as to the meaning of words treaties or legislation in their behalf; however, the rule is not inflexible in its application and must give way where such action is warranted by other rules of construc-
tion and the circum- stances of the case...
2. Historical differences between the situation in Alaska and the other states afford reasons for differ- ent interpretations of legislation pertaining to Alaska natives and legis- lation pertaining to In- dians in the other states. Therefore section & of the Act of May 17, 1884, regarding the occupancy of Alaska natives and others upon public land, is not in pari materia with the disclaimer pro- vision in section 3 of the Utah Enabling Act of 1894, as to lands "owned or held by any Indian or Indian Tribes".
CIVIL JURISDICTION
1. The provisions of the Act of July 18, 1966, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2415 and 2416, limit the time in which the United States may file suits on behalf of Indians and Indian tribes which seek any of the remedies specified in the Act. The Act does not apply to suits brought by tribes or individuals without the assistance of the federal government, but such suits, unless they are to quiet title to trust or restricted land, are sub- ject to the statute of limitation applicable gen- erally
1. A Crow Indian's application
for a patent in fee to lands for which a trust patent has been issued will be determined on the basis of general statutory provisions in that respect, and a decision to with- hold fee patent will be overturned on appeal where there is an abuse of administrative discre- tion and where the record supports the conclusion that the applicant is cap- able of properly managing his or her own affairs____ HUNTING AND FISHING
1. The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe is an existing fed- erally recognized tribal entity that is a political successor in interest of some of the Indian tribes or bands which were par- ties to the Treaties of Medicine Creek, 10 Stat. 1132, and Point Elliott, 12 Stat. 927, and there-
1. The holder of a coal prospect- ing permit is entitled to a lease pursuant to section 2 of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended, 30 U.S.C. §201(b) (1970), if he shows to the satis- faction of the Secretary of the Interior that the land contains coal in com- mercial quantities discov- ered prior to the expira- tion of his permit_----
MINERAL LEASING ACT FOR ACQUIRED LANDS
1. The regulatory requirement that an acquired lands oil and gas lease offer must be accompanied by a statement showing the extent of the offeror's ownership of the oper- ating rights to the frac- tional mineral interest not owned by the United States in each tract cov- ered by the offer to lease is satisfied by a state- ment to the effect that the offeror does not own an oil and gas lease on any part of the lands in question____
MINING CLAIMS
GENERALLY
1. The authority of the Govern- ment to proceed with the determination of the va- lidity of a mining claim is not barred by laches, because Government property is not to be disposed of contrary to
quiescence, laches, or fail- ure to act on the part of
its officers or agents----- COMMON VARIETIES OF MINERALS
1. Where mining claims are located after enactment of the Act of July 23, 1955, for deposits of naturally colored volcanic stone having various colors, the stone being mined, crushed, sold, and used for roofing rock, the de- posits are common va- rieties of stone and are not subject to location under the mining laws after July 23, 1955, where it is shown that similar volcanic stone is of wide- spread occurrence and that the claimants ob- tain the same price in the market for the stone as their competitors who produce and sell similar naturally colored volcanic stone. It is not enough to remove the stone in issue from the common varieties category merely to show that it sells for a somewhat higher price than other commonly oc- curring rocks used for the same purpose that are less attractively col- ored, such as crushed granite, limestone and pea gravel____
2. Where placer mining claims are located after July 23, 1955, for deposits of building stone, the stone may be an variety subject to location where it commands a higher price in the market-
MINING CLAIMS-Con.
COMMON VARIETIES OF MIN-
place because of its uni- que patterns and colora- tion characteristics_____
3. The Act of July 23, 1955, as amended, 30 U.S.C. §611 (1970), had the effect of excluding from the cover- age of the mining laws "common varieties" of building stone, but left the Act of August 4, 1892, 30 U.S.C. § 161 (1970), authorizing the location of building stone placer mining claims, effective as to building stone that has "some property giving it distinct and spe- cial value"
4. To determine whether a de- posit of building stone is of a common or uncom- mon variety, there must be a comparison of the deposit with other de- posits of similar type materials in order to as- certain whether the deposit has a property giving it a distinct and special value. If the de- posit is to be used for the same purposes as minerals of common
occurrence, then there must be a showing that some prop- erty of the deposit gives it a special value for such use and generally this value is reflected by the fact that the material commands a higher price in the market place----- 5. To satisfy the requirements for discovery on a placer mining claim located for common varieties of sand and gravel before July 23,
MINING CLAIMS-Con.
COMMON VARIETIES OF MIN- ERALS-Con.
Generally-Continued
1955, it must be shown that the materials within the limits of the claim, by reason of accessibility, bona fides in develop- ment, proximity to market, existence of present demand, and other factors, could have been extracted, removed, and marketed at a profit as of that date. Where a claimant fails to make such a showing, the claim is properly declared null and void..
6. To determine whether a de- posit of sand and gravel is of a common or uncom- mon variety, there must be a comparison of the deposit with other de- posits of similar type materials to ascertain whether the deposit has a property giving it dis- tinct and special value. If the deposit is to be used for the same purposes as minerals of common oc- currence, then there must be a showing that some property of the deposit gives it a special value for such use, and that such value is reflected generally by the fact that the material commands a higher price in the marketplace...
« iepriekšējāTurpināt » |