43 C.F.R. § 4.400
Scope of rules
The regulations in this subpart set forth rules applicable to appeals before the Interior Board of Land Appeals. General rules in subparts A and B of this part are applicable to the proceedings before the Board unless they are inconsistent with these rules. Wherever there is any conflict between the general rules in subpart B and the rules in this subpart, the rules in this subpart will govern. In addition, the OHA Standing Orders apply to appeals before the Board and are available on the Department of the Interior OHA website, at https://www.doi.gov/oha.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases, 1973–2010 · leading case: Oregon Nat. Desert Ass'n v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 625 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2010).
Oregon Nat. Desert Ass'n v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 625 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2010). “The Interior Board of Land Appeals (“IBLA”), an administrative adjudicative body of the Department of the Interior which has jurisdiction over the BLM, see generally 43 C.F.R. § 4.400 et seq., has also long held as much.”
Oregon Nat. Desert Ass'n v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 531 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2008). “The Interior Board of Land Appeals (“IBLA”), an administrative adjudicative body of the Department of the Interior which has jurisdiction over the BLM, see generally 43 C.F.R. §§ 4.400 et seq., has also long held as much.”
Last Chance Mining Co. v. United States, 12 Cl. Ct. 551 (Ct. Cl. 1987). “NC 83-0097A (August 29, 1984), involving similar allegations of failure to record, as confirmation that Last Chance’s proper recourse, if any, would have been to obtain an administrative decision (see 43 C.F.R. §§ 4.400 through 4.452-9) and seek review under the Administrative…”
Oil Shale Corp. v. Morton, 370 F. Supp. 108 (D. Colo. 1973). “See 43 C.F.R. Sections 4.400(c)&(d), 4.410, 4.”
Pence v. Andrus, 586 F.2d 733 (9th Cir. 1978). “The aggrieved applicant may always appeal the decision to the IBLA, 43 C.F.R. § 4.400 et seq. (1976), which can correct error by the BLM.”
S. Utah Wilderness All. v. Norton, 301 F.3d 1217 (10th Cir. 2002). ““Any person adversely affected by a specific action being proposed to implement some portion of a resource management plan or amendment may appeal such action pursuant to 43 CFR 4.400 at the time the action is proposed for implementation.”
Silas v. Babbitt, 96 F.3d 355 (9th Cir. 1996). “The aggrieved applicant may always appeal the decision to the IBLA, 43 C.F.R. § 4.400 et seq. (1976), which can correct error by the BLM.”
S. Utah Wilderness All. v. Gale Norton, 301 F.3d 1217 (10th Cir. 2002). “"Any person adversely affected by a specific action being proposed to implement some portion of a resource management plan or amendment may appeal such action pursuant to 43 CFR 4.400 at the time the action is proposed for implementation.”
S. Utah v. Norton (10th Cir. 2004). ““Any person adversely affected by a specific action being proposed to implement some portion of a resource management plan or amendment may appeal such action pursuant to 43 CFR 4.400 at the time the action is proposed for implementation.”
Oregon Nat. Desert Ass'n v. Bureau of Land Mgmt. (9th Cir. 2008). “The Interior Board of Land Appeals (“IBLA”), an administrative adjudicative body of the Depart- ment of the Interior which has jurisdiction over the BLM, see generally 43 C.F.R. §§ 4.400 et seq., has also long held as much.”
— 43 C.F.R. § 4.400(c) — 1 case
Oil Shale Corp. v. Morton, 370 F. Supp. 108 (D. Colo. 1973). “See 43 C.F.R. Sections 4.400(c)&(d), 4.410, 4.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.