Foster v. Seaton
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
271 F.2d 836 (1959)
- Written by Tanya Munson, JD
Facts
The provisions of 30 U.S.C.A. 22, 29, 35 authorized occupation and purchase of government lands containing valuable mineral deposits. Everett Foster (plaintiff) had claims to valuable mineral deposits of sand and gravel 13 miles from the center of Las Vegas. The Department of Interior initiated proceedings to contest Foster’s claims on the ground that the deposits of sand and gravel were insufficient in quantity, quality, and accessibility to a market to constitute a valid discovery. The hearing officer found in favor of Foster. However, an appeal was filed by rival claimants who intervened to assert an interest in the land under the Small Tract Act, 43 U.S.C.A. 682a. The director of the Bureau of Land Management heard the appeal and reversed the hearing officer’s decision. The secretary of the Interior (defendant) affirmed the director’s ruling. Foster brought suit in district court under the Administrative Procedures Act to review the secretary’s decision, arguing that the secretary misinterpreted the statute by requiring a demonstration of the present value of the mineral deposits. Foster and the secretary cross-moved for summary judgment. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the secretary. Foster appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 824,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 989 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.