Henrikson v. Udall, Civ. No. 41749.
| Decision Date | 22 May 1964 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 41749. |
| Citation | 229 F. Supp. 510 |
| Parties | Charles H. HENRIKSON and Oliver M. Henrikson, Plaintiffs, v. Stewart L. UDALL, United States Secretary of the Interior, the United States of America, George Steed, District Ranger, United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
Nagle, Vale & McDowall, San Mateo, Cal., for plaintiffs.
Cecil F. Poole, U.S. Atty., J. Harold Weise, Asst. U. S. Atty., San Francisco, Cal., for defendants.
Defendants have moved for summary judgment in an action initiated by plaintiffs under the Federal Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.A. § 1001 et seq., asking for review of a decision by the Secretary of the Interior who ruled against plaintiffs' mining claim on Squaw Creek Placer. The motion is based on the pleadings and the exhibits lodged and filed with the court and constituting the entire record of proceedings heretofore had by plaintiffs in their hearing, and the review therefrom, before the Department of the Interior. Defendants contend that the undisputed facts entitled them to a summary judgment inasmuch as the evidence upon which the Secretary based his decision (Exhibit C) was sufficient as a matter of law to sustain his holding. (Foster v. Seaton, 106 U.S.App.D.C. 253, 271 F.2d 836, 838; Adams v. United States, (9th Cir.) 318 F.2d 861, 873.)
The record, which has been reviewed in its entirety by the court, discloses that plaintiffs were the holders of two placer-mining claims known as Squaw Valley Placer and Squaw Creek Placer. The former was obtained in 1949 and the latter in 1953 and both dealt with sand and gravel. Plaintiffs applied for a patent in 1957 under the general mining laws and administrative regulations (30 U.S. C.A. § 21 et seq.).
The two claims adjoined one another at the mouth of Squaw Valley in the Tahoe National Forest about five miles north of the lake. Squaw Valley Placer had been worked for its sand and gravel for some years prior to the initiation of the patent proceedings; Squaw Creek Placer had been explored as a possible source of materials when the sand and gravel of Squaw Valley Placer should become exhausted. The record indicates an expenditure of several hundred dollars on the Squaw Creek claim.
The government challenged both claims in a contest proceeding brought against plaintiffs' holdings, alleging that there had been no discovery of a valuable mineral as required by the patent laws. At the conclusion of a hearing in 1959 before a Hearing Examiner, the case went to the Secretary of the Interior whose decision is now being challenged by plaintiffs insofar as it declared invalid the Squaw Creek claim. Plaintiffs ask this court to upset the decision of the Secretary of the Interior (70 Interior Department Decisions 212), on the ground that it is not supported by substantial evidence.
The record discloses that three expert witnesses, all of whom examined Squaw Creek Placer, independently stated that the gravel did not exist in commercial quantities nor quality and would not justify development by a prudent man.1 These witnesses, in addition to their outstanding qualifications, walked over the terrain, measured the showings of sand and gravel in the pits by pacing and by tape, made maps to determine the geological character of the deposits both as to their extent and their nature and to estimate their quality and quantity. They looked at the excavations which had been made on the claims, identified the material and analyzed it in terms of its characteristics for commercial development. Thus the defendants produced an abundance of evidence to support the opinions expressed by the several witnesses as to the gravel deposits to be found at Squaw Creek Placer.
The legal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Multiple Use, Inc. v. Morton
...of the Interior, which has plenary authority over the administration of public lands, including mineral lands". Henrikson v. Udall, 229 F.Supp. 510, 512 (N.D.Cal. 1964). And, even though a court in a trial de novo might have arrived at a different result, it may not substitute its judgment ......
-
Coleman v. United States
...Mulkern v. Hammitt, supra, sand and gypsum; Adams v. United States, supra, sand and gold; Henrikson v. Udall (9 CCA 1965), 350 F.2d 949, 229 F.Supp. 510, sand and gravel. In addition, the applicant may be required to show, if challenged to do so, that the claims were located in good faith f......
-
Dow Jones & Co., Inc. v. United States Postal Serv.
...is appropriate. Dredge Corp. v. Penny, 338 F.2d 456 (C.A.9, 1964); Denison v. Udall, 248 F. Supp. 942 (D.Ariz.1965); Henrikson v. Udall, 229 F.Supp. 510 (N.D.Cal.1964), aff'd 350 F.2d 949 (C.A.9, 1965), cert. den. 384 U.S. 940, 86 S.Ct. 1457, 16 L. Ed.2d 538 (1966). Consequently, the Court ......
-
Osborne v. Hammit
...the validity of one sand and gravel placer claim and rejecting another, and was affirmed by the reviewing court (Henrikson v. Udall, (D.C.Cal. 1964, 229 F.Supp. 510). In the Henrikson case the decision, rather than holding that there could be no discovery of such a material, emphasized the ......
-
CHAPTER 14 RECENT DECISIONS PERTAINING TO THE RIGHT TO PATENT
...United States v. Charles H. and Oliver M. Henrikson, 70 I.D. 212, GFS (Min) SO-27 (A-28763, June 4, 1963), aff'd, Henrikson v. Udall, 229 F. Supp. 510 (N.D. Calif. 1964), 350 F.2d 949 (9th Cir. 1965), cert.den. 384 U. S. 940 (1966). [16] The Department should be able to distinguish between ......