State of Alaska v. Udall
| Decision Date | 19 December 1969 |
| Docket Number | 23597.,No. 23603,23603 |
| Citation | 420 F.2d 938 |
| Parties | STATE OF ALASKA, Appellee, v. Stewart L. UDALL, Secretary of the Interior; Boyd L. Rasmussen, Director, Bureau of Land Management; Burton L. Silcock, State Director for Alaska, Bureau of Land Management; and Robert C. Krumm, Manager, Fairbanks Land Office, Bureau of Land Management, Appellants. STATE OF ALASKA, Appellee, v. NATIVE VILLAGE OF NENANA, Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
David Birenbaum (argued), Arthur Lazarus, Jr., Frank B. Friedman (argued), Shiro Kashiwa, Asst. Attys. Gen., Lands Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Charles Cranston (argued), Stephen Cooper (argued), Asst. Attys. Gen., Charles K. Cranston, Atty. Gen. of Alaska, Juneau, Alaska, for appellee.
Paul, Weiss, Goldberg, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, New York City, Weissbrodt & Weissbrodt, Washington, D. C., amicus curiae.
Before BARNES, HAMLEY and KILKENNY, Circuit Judges.
This is an action brought by the State of Alaska, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1361, to compel the Secretary of the Interior of the United States and other officials to issue a patent and grant tentative approval to certain lands selected by the state pursuant to section 6(b) of the Alaska Statehood Act, 72 Stat. 339 (1958), 48 U.S.C. note prec. § 21. Asserting its claim to such lands on the basis of aboriginal use, occupancy and continued possession, the Native Village of Nenana (Native Village) intervened as a party defendant. The district court granted the State's motion for summary judgment. Defendants and intervenor appeal.
Native Village argues that the district court erred in disposing of the case on motion for summary judgment because there were genuine issues of material fact. See Rule 56(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Section 6(b) of the Alaska Statehood Act, which the State seeks to enforce, provides that the State shall be entitled to select not to exceed 102,550,000 acres from the public lands of the United States in Alaska "which are vacant, unappropriated, and unreserved at the time of their selection * * *."
The record shows that petitions protesting these land selections were filed by members of Native Village with the Bureau of Land Management before this litigation arose. These petitions alleged that Native Village has possessory rights to the lands in question on the basis of present and aboriginal use and occupancy. In its answer to the complaint, Native Village denied the State's allegation that the land selected was vacant, unappropriated and unreserved. As an affirmative defense, Native Village asserted that it uses, owns, and occupies all or substantially all of the real property which forms the subject matter of this action.
The stipulation with respect to undisputed facts reserved for determination by the court, the claim of Native Village that the lands selected by the State were not vacant, unappropriated and unreserved. In support of its opposition to the State's motion for summary judgment, Native Village filed in the district court the affidavits of two members attesting to past and present native use of the selected land "for trapping, hunting, and camp sites."
No counter affidavit was filed based upon a physical examination of the lands in question.1 Even if countering affidavits of this kind had been filed, however, the factual issue would still remain, thereby rendering a summary judgment inappropriate. The only escape from this conclusion is to hold that under no circumstances could Indian trapping, hunting and camping (activities referred to in the Native Village affidavits) constitute a condition which would deprive the selected lands of the status of being "vacant, unappropriated, and unreserved." We are unwilling to so hold.2
Alaska contends that Native Village may not argue on appeal that there were genuine issues of material fact because it failed to file in the district court a statement of genuine issues, as required by Rule 5(H) (2), General and Criminal Rules, United States District Court for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Seldovia Native Ass'n, Inc. v. Lujan
...to the OTE lands, SNA argues that the Secretary's tentative approval of the State's selection is void. SNA relies on State of Alaska v. Udall, 420 F.2d 938 (9th Cir.1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 1076, 90 S.Ct. 1522, 25 L.Ed.2d 811 (1970), and Edwardsen v. Morton, 369 F.Supp. 1359 (D.D.C.197......
-
Edwardsen v. Morton
...of the Statehood Act which plaintiffs urge is, moreover, supported by relatively recent authority in another circuit. State of Alaska v. Udall, 420 F.2d 938 (9th Cir. 1969). In that case, a Ninth Circuit panel reversed a District Court decision granting summary judgment in favor of the Stat......
-
Aguilar v. United States
...passage of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, land occupied by Natives was not available for state selection. State of Alaska v. Udall, 420 F.2d 938 (9th Cir. 1969), cert. denied 397 U.S. 1076, 90 S.Ct. 1522, 25 L.Ed.2d 811 (1970). But these plaintiffs need not rely on a naked aborigi......
-
United States v. Atlantic Richfield Co.
...the Secretary of the Interior to approve pending State selections and patent others which were subject to Native claims. Alaska v. Udall, 420 F.2d 938 (9th Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 1076, 90 S.Ct. 1522, 25 L.Ed.2d 811 (1970).31 The State then turned to Congress for a Native leaders......
-
Sovereignty and Subsistence: Native Self-government and Rights to Hunt, Fish, and Gather After Ancsa
...supra note 81, at 379-80. [96] CASE & VOLUCK, supra note 9, at 57. [97]See Public Land Order 4582, 34 Fed. Reg. 1025 (1969). [98] 420 F.2d 938 (9th Cir. [99] ARNOLD, supra note 31, at 112. [100] HENSLEY, supra note 21, at 136. [101] COHEN'S HANDBOOK, supra note 12, § 4.07[3][b][i], at 329. ......
-
The Legal Protection of Subsistence: a Prerequisite of Food Security for the Inuit of Alaska(fn1000)
...(last visited Mar. 28, 2005). [21] Alaska Statehood Act 4. [22]Id. [23]See BERGER, supra note 6, at 91. [24] Alaska v. Udall, 420 F.2d 938, 939 (9th Cir. 1969). [25]See id. [26] CASE and VOLUCK, supra note 8, at 156. [27] CLAUS-M. NASKE and HERMAN E. SLOTNICK, ALASKA: A HISTORY OF THE 49TH ......
-
Sovereignty and Subsistence: Native Self-government and Rights to Hunt, Fish, and Gather After Ancsa
...supra note 81, at 379-80. [96] CASE & VOLUCK, supra note 9, at 57. [97]See Public Land Order 4582, 34 Fed. Reg. 1025 (1969). [98] 420 F.2d 938 (9th Cir. [99] ARNOLD, supra note 31, at 112. [100] HENSLEY, supra note 21, at 136. [101] COHEN'S HANDBOOK, supra note 12, § 4.07[3][b][i], at 329. ......
-
Look Back to Go Forward
...340 (1958). [28] Statehood Act § 4, 72 Stat. at 339. [29] CASE & VOLUCK, supra note 23, at 74. [30]Id. [31]Id.; State of Alaska v. Udall, 420 F.2d 938, 939 (9th Cir. [32] CASE & VOLUCK, supra note 23, at 74; Udall, 420 F.2d at 940. [33]Udall, 420 F.2d at 940 (citing U.S. v. Berrigan, 2 Alas......