Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

405 F.2d 1181

Docket No. 9681.

Udall v. Garula

Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided May 24, 1968.

Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1968-05-24

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently January 1975

3 federal appellate · 1 district ·

2 counsel of record

Applies 30 U.S.C. § 22

Relies on United States v. Coleman · Udall v. Snyder · Garula v. Udall

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1968-05-24

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1George R. Hyde, Washington, D. C. (J. Edward Williams, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen. of United States, Lawrence M. Henry, U. S. Atty. for District of Colorado, Richard T. Spriggs, Asst. U. S. Atty., and Roger P. Marquis, Attorney, Department of Justice, on the brief), for appellant.

¶2David C. Little, Denver, Colo., for appellee.

¶3Before LEWIS and HILL, Circuit Judges, and CHRISTENSEN, District Judge.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5Adversary proceedings instituted by the Bureau of Land Management of the Department of the Interior culminated in a decision of the Secretary of the Interior that the appellee’s unpatented lode mining claim was null and void for lack of discovery of a valuable mineral deposit.1

¶6On review the trial court held that the Secretary had applied an erroneous test of mineral discovery, and set aside the administrative ruling. Garula v. Udall, 268 F.Supp. 910 (D.C.Colo.1967).

¶7Reversed on the authority of United States v. Coleman, 390 U.S. 599, 88 S.Ct. 1327, 20 L.Ed.2d 170, decided April 22, 1968, and for reasons similar to those stated in Udall v. Snyder, 405 F.2d 1179 (10 Cir. 1968), decided today.

¶8This conclusion is required notwithstanding the loss of the administrative record after its filing in the district court, since the record as reconstructed by stipulation and the order of the court below is deemed adequate to sustain the administrative determination in view of Coleman.

/405/f2d/1181 · .json · Public domain