Benjamin F. Maplesden and Anne W. Maplesden v. United States of America, and Jon E. Riewerts

Good Law
764 F.2d 1290·1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 20227
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 2, 198584-1830California834 words

Opinion

Opinion

Nelson, J.

Appellants’ land adjoins the Klamath National Forest in California. In a related action, appellants are seeking damages from the government for timber damage from a forest fire that reached their property. Appellants initiated this action to clarify the amount of damaged timber located on their property, rather than within the boundaries of the National Forest. The district court found that some 35 acres of timberland that appellants claim is part of their homestead belongs instead to the National Forest. The district court accepted the boundaries set in a 1972 government resurvey, which was officially adopted by the government in 1977. See 43 U.S.C. § 772 (1982) (authorizing resurveys). Appellants claimed that the boundary which this survey set between their land and the national forest was incorrect. We affirm the decision of the district court.

To prevail, appellants must establish that the district court’s conclusion on the factual question of the location of the eastern boundary of their land was clearly erroneous. See United States v. Hudspeth, 384 F.2d 683, 686 (9th Cir.1967). They contend that the government resurvey setting the boundaries, which the district court…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.