State of Utah v. Andrus
United States District Court for the District of Utah
486 F.Supp. 995 (1979)
The Cotter Corporation (Cotter) (defendant), a uranium-mining company, owned mining claims in the State of Utah (state) (defendant), including claims on federal land and a mineral lease on state school-trust land (trust land). The federal government granted the trust land to the state in exchange for the state’s agreement to disclaim the remainder of the public domain and use the trust land to generate public-school revenue. Access to the trust land required access to public land managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) (plaintiff). Cotter built access roads across BLM land without notifying the BLM. At the same time, the BLM conducted a wilderness inventory under the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) and designated the land explored by Cotter as a wilderness-study area. Upon discovering the access roads, the BLM requested that Cotter cease its road-construction activities. Cotter refused. The BLM brought suit against Cotter in the United States District Court for the District of Utah. The state intervened as a defendant, claiming a right to access BLM land in order to make economical use of the trust land. The BLM claimed that § 603(c) of the FLPMA, 43 U.S.C. § 1782(c), gave the BLM the right to manage its land under a strict standard that prevented the impairment of wilderness characteristics by land uses that commenced after October 1976. The BLM claimed that the lenient “unnecessary or undue degradation” management standard authorized by § 603(c) did not apply to Cotter, because Cotter’s land use did not commence prior to October 1976. Cotter claimed that § 603(c) authorized only the unnecessary-or-undue-degradation standard, and that this standard applied to Cotter because Cotter had the right to access its claims prior to October 1976. During litigation, Cotter presented a plan for the reclamation of land affected by Cotter’s road-construction and mining activities. However, the BLM did not have the opportunity to review the plan prior to consideration by the district court.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Anderson, C.J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 174,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 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.