43 U.S.C. § 1165
Transferred
[transferred]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases, 1929–2009 · leading case: Brandt-Erichsen v. United States Dep't of the Interior, Bureau of Land Mgmt., 999 F.2d 1376 (9th Cir. 1993).
Brandt-Erichsen v. United States Dep't of the Interior, Bureau of Land Mgmt., 999 F.2d 1376 (9th Cir. 1993). “POOLE, Circuit Judge: Appellant Viggo Thor Brandt-Erichsen appeals the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the appellees, the United States Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management and its employees, on the ground that Brandt-Erichsen failed to obtain a…”
Lavonne v. Grewell v. James G. Watt, Sec'y of the Interior, 664 F.2d 1380 (9th Cir. 1982). “” She then filed this action with the district court, contending that she had been denied due process of law and, moreover, that the Secretary’s contest of her claim was barred by the terms of 43 U.S.C. § 1165 . Cross-motions for summary judgment were filed and the district…”
Darrell Zwang & Elodymae Zwang v. Stewart L. Udall, as Sec'y of the Interior of the United States of Am., 371 F.2d 634 (9th Cir. 1967). “It is true that the Land Office’s latter decision on appellant’s claim to immediate issuance of patent is the first explicit determination by an administrative authority that the earlier rejections of final proofs amounted to a “protest” within the meaning of 43 U.S.C. § 1165 .…”
New West Materials LLC v. Interior Bd. of Land Appeals, 398 F. Supp. 2d 438 (E.D. Va. 2005). “1993) (”[T]he decisions of the Interior Board of Land Appeals, a part of the Department of the Interi- or, on the meaning of a 'receipt upon final entry' for purposes of [The Confirmation Statute, 43 U.S.C. § 1165 ] should be given substantial deference.”
United States v. Peterson, 34 F.2d 245 (10th Cir. 1929). “No attempt was made to comply with the terms for such permission, and the commutation of defendant that her actual residence totaled more than seven-twelfths of a year does not cure the incorrect affidavit.”
Brennan v. Udall, 251 F. Supp. 12 (D. Colo. 1966). “The Court held that the Secretary’s action followed the expiration of the two-year statute of limitations of the 1891 Homestead Act, 43 U.S.C. § 1165 and for that reason was void.”
Clara Armstrong v. Stewart Udall, Sec'y of the Interior, 435 F.2d 38 (9th Cir. 1970). “restrained, defendant will continue to claim the property and assert an interest “on behalf of the United States”, and unconstitutionally deprive plaintiff of her property; and that in failing to “deliver to William Trauger or his successors in interest, a correct patent to the…”
Palmer v. Dredge Corp., 398 F.2d 791 (9th Cir. 1968). “1098 (1891), as amended, 43 U.S.C. § 1165 (1964). However, as defendants point out, the Act of March 3, 1891 applies only to entrymen under the homestead, timber-culture, desert-land or pre-emption laws.”
Bobby Franklin v. Mark Chatterton, 358 F. App'x 970 (9th Cir. 2009). “We previously rejected Franklin’s contentions regarding the Confirmation Statute, 43 U.S.C. § 1165 , and Stockley v. United States, 260 U.”
Bwd Props. 2, LLC v. Bobby Franklin, 357 F. App'x 956 (9th Cir. 2009). “Alisal Water Corp., 431 F.3d 643 , 650 (9th Cir.2005) (stating de novo standard of review).”
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.