43 U.S.C. § 772
Resurveys or retracements to mark boundaries of undisposed lands
The Secretary of the Interior may, as of
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1966–2024 · leading case: United States v. Ruby Company, a Utah Corporation
United States v. Ruby Company, a Utah Corporation (1978)
“10 Ill The landowners also claim that the trial court erred by quieting title to the disputed lands in the government in contravention of 43 U.S.C. § 772 (1970). 11 We find no merit in this contention.”
United States v. John Hudspeth, John Hudspeth v. United States (1967)
“Brooks resurveyed a portion of the Township on instructions of the Secretary of Interior issued pursuant to 43 U.S.C. § 772 (1964). 1 The parties agree that the true boundary between their properties is determined by the position of the exterior and interior lines of the…”
Frank Lujan v. United States Department of the Interior and James G. Watt, Secretary (1982)
“The 1970 resurvey was made pursuant to the provisions of 43 U.S.C. § 772 (1976). That statute provides, in relevant part, as follows: The Secretary of the Interior may .”
Adams v. United States (1988)
“In their “Motion for Summary Judgment on Amended First Cause of Action” (# 54), Plaintiffs make the argument that due to the discrepancy between the gross acreage of the Properly as determined by the 1881 and the 1939 surveys, 43 U.S.C. § 772 (the Bona Fide Rights Act), 2…”
United States v. Estate of St. Clair (2016)
“2d at 138 ; see also 43 U.S.C. § 772 (“[N]o ... resurvey or retracement shall be so executed as to impair the bona fide rights or claims of any claimant, entryman, or owner of lands affected by such resurvey or retracement.”
United States v. James P. Doyle and Florence A. Doyle (1972)
“See 43 U.S.C.A. § 772 . 3 The original survey as it was actually run on the ground controls.”
United States v. Paul E. Reimann, and Maybeth Farr Reimann, His Wife (1974)
“629 (1919); 43 U.S.C.A. § 772 . But once patent has issued, the rights of patentees are fixed and the government has no power to interfere with these rights, as by a corrective resurvey.”
Beaver Creek Ranch, L.P. v. Gordman Leverich Ltd. Liability Ltd. Partnership (2009)
“43 U.S.C. § 772 ; see also Everett v. Lantz, 126 Colo.”
Sweeten v. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service (1982)
“First, they rely upon the language in 43 U.S.C. § 772 , which grants the Secretary of the Interior the power to resurvey or to retrace surveys on public lands, but contains the proviso that: “no such resurvey or retracement shall be so executed as to impair the bona fide rights…”
Pueblo of Taos v. Andrus (1979)
“§ 488 (1976), and authority to correct erroneous land surveys, 43 U.S.C. § 772 (1976). These statutory directives clearly confer upon the Secretary authority to correct what might even be characterized as gross errors in boundaries between public lands.”
Mannatt v. United States (2000)
“” 43 U.S.C. § 772 (1994). Defendant also refers to the general principle that “[a] survey does not create title; it only defines boundaries.”
Fadem v. United States (1987)
“The plaintiffs asked the District Court to establish the correct boundaries between themselves and the Federal Government under the authority of the Bona Fide Rights Act, 43 U.S.C. § 772 . On July 9,1985, Senior Judge Turrentine of the Southern District of California dismissed…”
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.