43 C.F.R. § 4.411
Management of appeals
The Board is vested with the general authority to regulate the course of appeals and the conduct of parties to ensure that appeals are resolved fairly, efficiently, and in compliance with applicable laws and orders.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases, 1978–2007 · leading case: Naartex Consulting Corp. v. Watt, 542 F. Supp. 1196 (D.D.C. 1982).
Naartex Consulting Corp. v. Watt, 542 F. Supp. 1196 (D.D.C. 1982). “” 43 C.F.R. § 4.411 (1979). Huff received notice that his offer had been rejected when his offer was returned in June, 1975.”
Geosearch, Inc. v. Andrus, 508 F. Supp. 839 (D. Wyo. 1981). “The appeal procedure for unsuccessful drawees is outlined by 43 C.F.R. § 4.411 . If the unsuccessful drawee desires to appeal the adverse decision, a notice of appeal must be filed in the office of the officer who made the decision.”
Nequoia Ass'n v. Dep't of the Interior of the United States, 626 F. Supp. 827 (D. Utah 1985). “* * 43 C.F.R. § 4.411 . Because Nequoia’s motion to vacate was in reality an appeal claiming error in a decision for which the appeals period had long expired, the IBLA was compelled by the regulations to deny the motion.”
New West Materials LLC v. Interior Bd. of Land Appeals, 398 F. Supp. 2d 438 (E.D. Va. 2005). “On January 3, 2002, the BLM issued a notice of trespass to New West and JWR for the unauthorized removal of the sand and gravel. This notice of trespass stated that the alleged trespass was non-willful.”
Park Cnty. Resource Council, Inc. v. United States Dep't of Agric., 613 F. Supp. 1182 (D. Wyo. 1985). “43 C.F.R. § 4.411 . Under the doctrine of failure to exhaust administrative remedies, plaintiffs would again be barred from raising the issue of the need for an EIS on the original lease.”
Pence v. Andrus, 586 F.2d 733 (9th Cir. 1978). “43 C.F.R. § 4.411 (1976). . The literal language of Sainberg v.”
Mariner Energy Inc. v. Watson, 242 F. App'x 976 (5th Cir. 2007). “See 43 C.F.R. § 4.411 (a). On *978 September 30, 2002, Mariner received the MMS Director’s decision.”
Geosearch, Inc. v. Hodel, 801 F.2d 1250 (10th Cir. 1986). “See also 43 C.F.R. § 4.411 (thirty-day period for initial contest of Department decision; no time extensions allowed).”
Joseph A. Winkler v. Texoma Prod. Co., a Corp., & Terra Resources, Inc., a Corp., 758 F.2d 1360 (10th Cir. 1985). “Plaintiff had knowledge of the assignments and is charged with knowledge of the BLM approval. These events took place long before the BLM “decision.”
New West Materials LLC v. Interior Bd. of Land Appeals, 216 F. App'x 385 (4th Cir. 2007). “New West and JWR appealed the notice of trespass to the IBLA pursuant to 43 C.F.R. § 4.411 . On December 2, 2004, the IBLA upheld the BLM’s trespass determination in a written decision in New West Materials, 164 IBLA 126 (2004).”
— 43 C.F.R. § 4.411(a) — 1 case
Nequoia Ass'n v. Dep't of the Interior of the United States, 626 F. Supp. 827 (D. Utah 1985). “* * 43 C.F.R. § 4.411 . Because Nequoia’s motion to vacate was in reality an appeal claiming error in a decision for which the appeals period had long expired, the IBLA was compelled by the regulations to deny the motion.”
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.