U.S. Code » Title 43 » Chapter CHAPTER 35— FEDERAL LAND POLICY AND MANAGEMENT › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER V— RIGHTS-OF-WAY

43 U.S.C. § 1769

Existing right-of-way or right-of-use unaffected; exceptions; rights-of-way for railroad and appurtenant communication facilities; applicability of existing terms and conditions

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 43 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Nothing in this subchapter shall have the effect of terminating any right-of-way or right-of-use heretofore issued, granted, or permitted. However, with the consent of the holder thereof, the Secretary concerned may cancel such a right-of-way or right-of-use and in its stead issue a right-of-way pursuant to the provisions of this subchapter.(b) When the Secretary concerned issues a right-of-way under this subchapter for a railroad and appurtenant communication facilities in connection with a realinement of a railroad on lands under his jurisdiction by virtue of a right-of-way granted by the United States, he may, when he considers it to be in the public interest and the lands involved are not within an incorporated community and are of approximately equal value, notwithstanding the provisions of this subchapter, provide in the new right-of-way the same terms and conditions as applied to the portion of the existing right-of-way relinquished to the United States with respect to the payment of annual rental, duration of the right-of-way, and the nature of the interest in lands granted. The Secretary concerned or his delegate shall take final action upon all applications for the grant, issue, or renewal of rights-of-way under subsection (b) of this section no later than six months after receipt from the applicant of all information required from the applicant by this subchapter.(Pub. L. 94–579, title V, § 509, Oct. 21, 1976, 90 Stat. 2781.)Executive DocumentsTransfer of Functions

See note set out under section 1763 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 52 cases (14 in the last 5 years), 1981–2025 · leading case: Kane Cnty., Utah v. United States, 928 F.3d 877 (10th Cir. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Kane Cnty., Utah v. United States, 928 F.3d 877 (10th Cir. 2019). · cites it 2× “43 U.S.C. § 1769 (a). Seven months after Kane County filed its complaint, SUWA1 moved to intervene as of right under Rule 24(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”
Sierra Club v. Hodel, 848 F.2d 1068 (10th Cir. 1988). · cites it 5× “See FLPMA §§ 509(a), 701(a), and 701(h), codified respectively at 43 U.S.C. §§ 1769 (a) and 1701, Savings Provisions (a) and (h).”
United States v. Est. of E. Wayne Hage, 810 F.3d 712 (9th Cir. 2016). · cites it 2× “See 43 U.S.C. § 1769 (a) ("Nothing in this subchapter shall have the effect of terminating any right-of-way or right-of-use heretofore issued, granted, or permitted.”
W. Aggregates, Inc. v. Cnty. of Yuba, 130 Cal. Rptr. 2d 436 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002). “( 43 U.S.C. § 1769 (a); South. Utah Wilderness All.”
Nemeth v. Shoshone Cnty., 453 P.3d 844 (Idaho 2019). · cites it 2× “43 U.S.C. § 1769 (a) (“Nothing in this title shall have the effect of terminating any right-of-way or right-of-use heretofore issued, granted, or permitted .”
Bassett, New Mexico LLC v. United States, 55 Fed. Cl. 63 (Fed. Cl. 2002). · cites it 2× “Nonetheless, Congress also provided protection to rights-of-way under 43 U.S.C. § 1769 (a) (2002) 5 and in the Savings Provisions listed under 43 U.”
Great Old Broads for Wildernes v. Abigail Kimbell, 709 F.3d 836 (9th Cir. 2013). “43 U.S.C. § 1769 (a). Parties claiming RS 2477 easements must show the road on which their claim is based was built before the land it crosses lost its public character.”
Kane Cnty., Utah v. United States, 772 F.3d 1205 (10th Cir. 2014). “See 43 U.S.C. § 1769 (a). Thus, R.S. 2477 rights-of-way were preserved “as they existed on the date of passage” of the FLPMA, October 21, 1976.”
Ulibarri v. Jesionowski, 523 P.3d 624 (N.M. Ct. App. 2022). “2743 , 2781; see also 43 U.S.C. § 1769 . This reservation of rights created questions as to the status and scope of use of such roads, and that was the issue discussed in Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 425 F.”
Kane Cnty. v. United States, 94 F.4th 1017 (10th Cir. 2024). “3d at 882 (citing 43 U.S.C. § 1769 (a)). Congress’ repeal of R.”
Friends of Panamint Valley v. Kempthorne, 499 F. Supp. 2d 1165 (E.D. Cal. 2007). “43 U.S.C. § 1769 (a). 2. The Quiet Title Act The Quiet Title Act provides that “[t]he United States may be named as a party defendant in a civil action .”
Hage v. United States, 51 Fed. Cl. 570 (Fed. Cl. 2002). “The reservoir portion of this act was repealed by the FLPMA, 43 U.S.C. § 1769 (1976). . Stock Raising Homestead Act of 1916, 39 Stat.”
Show all 52 citing cases →
— 43 U.S.C. § 1769(a) — 1 case
Nemeth v. Shoshone Cnty., 453 P.3d 844 (Idaho 2019). “43 U.S.C. § 1769 (a) (“Nothing in this title shall have the effect of terminating any right-of-way or right-of-use heretofore issued, granted, or permitted .”
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.