Adams

Adams v. Witmer

Good Law
271 F.2d 29·1 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 345
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 10, 1958No. 15859California5,149 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Pope, J.

This action was filed for the purpose of procuring a judicial review of an administrative order of the Bureau of Land Management which denied the appellant’s applications for patents to certain mining claims and cancelled his mineral entries thereon. Upon review by the Bureau of Land Management, the order was approved and affirmed. 1 Appeal was then taken to the Secretary of the Interior. Pending the hearing of the appeal, appellant made a motion to set aside the decisions of the Manager and of the Director and to remand the matter for rehearing before a duly authorized hearing examiner on the ground that the proceeding failed to comply with certain provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, 2 and hence that the matter should be reheard de novo. The motion was heard but rejected. Thereafter, upon hearing, the appeal to the Secretary was denied and the orders affirmed. Thus the appellant has exhausted his administrative remedies.

The mining claims are located within the boundaries of the Los Angeles National Forest, and the contest, which resulted in appellant’s application for patents being denied was instituted by officers of the Forest Service. Following the final action…

Opinion on Rehearing

Upon Petition for Rehearing, Etc., and Appellee Witmer’s Motion to Dismiss Appeal.

Before CHAMBERS, BONE and POPE, Circuit Judges.

The petition for rehearing adds up to two contentions. The first one amounts to an assertion that the orders of the Bureau of Land Management, and of the Secretary, are not subject to judicial review. Thus appellees say: “Whether such a discovery has been made is a factual issue which is to be determined by the Secretary of the Interior,” and “the Secretary of the Interior must determine, among other things, that a valid discovery has been made.” Again: “To meet this situation, the Secretary of the Interior has provided a procedure whereby a hearing can be held to permit determination of the validity of mining locations.”

Of course those hearings are in order. Every “agency” as that term is defined in the Administrative Procedure Act, holds hearings and makes findings. These statements of the appellees can have no relevance here unless they are meant to suggest that these hearings and determinations by the Secretary are final *38 and nonreviewable. But the Administrative Procedure Act was enacted to bring “the decision of controversies * * * back…

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.