CECIL R. REED, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
STEWART L. UDALL, SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR OF THE UNITED STATES, AND INDIVIDUALLY; J. R. PENNY, NEVADA STATE DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, AND INDIVIDUALLY; AND VAL B. RICHMAN, DISTRICT MANAGER, CARSON CITY OFFICE, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, AND INDIVIDUALLY, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the administrative record contained substantial evidence to support the Secretary of the Interior's decision to cancel the homestead entry.
Appellant's homestead entry was cancelled by the Secretary of the Interior for failing to meet cultivation requirements. Appellant sought review, subm…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Substantial Evidence Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
The Secretary of the Interior cancelled appellant’s homestead entry upon the ground that it did not meet the cultivation requirements of 43 U.S.C. §§ 164, 279. Appellant sought review in the District Court and that court, by summary judgment, upheld the Secretary. This appeal followed. The sole question presented is whether there is substantial evidence in the administrative record to support the position of the Secretary. Palmer v. Dredge Corp., 398 F. 2d 791 (9th Cir. 1968).
Appellant contends that his submission of the statutorily required proof of compliance (affidavits from himself and two neighbors) constitutes all that is necessary for the issuance of his patent. If this view were to prevail the United States would be at the mercy of fraudulent homesteaders. The Department of Interior was not required to accept the affidavits as conclusive proof that appellant had cultivated the requisite acreage. Boesche v. Udall, 373 U.S. 472, 476-477, 83 S.Ct. 1373, 10 L.Ed.2d 491 (1963); Best v. Humboldt Placer Mining Co., 371 U.S. 334, 336-338, 83 S.Ct. 379, 9 L.Ed.2d 350 (1963). Accordingly, the truth of the affidavits was challenged in a contest proceeding initiated pursuant to the Department’s regulations. 43 C.F.R. 1852.2. A hearing was held and the hearing examiner ruled for appellant. The Director of the Bureau of Land Management reversed, finding that the entry was not made or maintained in good faith and that insufficient acreage was cultivated. The Secretary affirmed.
At the hearing before the hearing examiner testimony of a land examiner disputed appellant’s proof. He stated that the lands were desert in character; that he had observed no evidence of tillage or of crop planting or of irrigation which would be essential to produce a crop on such lands. We agreed with the District Court that the administrative record supports the decision of the Secretary.
Judgment affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Best v. Humboldt Placer Mining Co., 371 U.S. 334 (U.S. 1963)
- Boesche v. Udall, 373 U.S. 472 (U.S. 1963)
- Palmer v. The Dredge Corp., 398 F.2d 791 (9th Cir. 1968)