Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Alice A. BOYLE and Carrie H. Boyle, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Rogers C. B. MORTON, Secretary of the Department of the Interior of the United States of America, Defendant-Appellant, 1975 â 519 F.2d 551 · caselaw · US
General
Alice A. BOYLE and Carrie H. Boyle, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Rogers C. B. MORTON, Secretary of the Department of the Interior of the United States of America, Defendant-Appellant
519 F.2d 551·United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·1975
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Alice A. BOYLE and Carrie H. Boyle, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Rogers C. B. MORTON, Secretary of the Department of the Interior of the United States of America, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 72-2690.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
July 2, 1975.
Rehearing Denied Aug. 29, 1975.
Certiorari Denied Dec. 15,1975.
See 96 S.Ct. 566.
Jacques B. Gelin, Atty., Appellate Section, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C. (argued), for defendant-appellant.
Hale C. Tognoni, Phoenix, Ariz. (argued), for plaintiffs-appellees.
Before BROWNING and GOODWIN, Circuit Judges, and KING, District Judge.
Honorable Samuel P. King, United States Dis trict Judge, District of Hawaii, sitting by designation.
[MAJORITY â PER CURIAM:]
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
The Secretaryâs decision, reported at 76 I.D. 318, must be sustained.
The Secretaryâs finding that there had been no discovery of a valuable deposit of decomposed granite within the limits of appelleesâ claims prior to July 23, 1955, is supported by substantial evidence. Most of appelleesâ proof consisted of general unsupported claims of sales in unspecified amounts. Specifically identified sales totaled about $100 over an eight-year period. This was not enough to establish, as a matter of law, that the marketability test of United States v. Coleman, 390 U.S. 599, 88 S.Ct. 1327, 20 L.Ed.2d 170 (1968), was satisfied.
The record also supports the Secretaryâs finding that the red, gold, and pink decomposed granite found on appelleesâ claims was a âcommon varietyâ of stone and, by the terms of 30 U.S.C. § 611, therefore could not be the basis for a valid mining claim. The record shows that a large quantity of colored decorative decomposed granite similar to appelleesâ was available from other deposits in the same general marketing area. The Secretary therefore properly compared the price of appelleesâ decomposed granite only with the price of this similar decorative granite, and not with the price of all decomposed granite, in determining that appelleesâ granite did not have a âdistinct and special value.â Brubaker v. Morton, 500 F.2d 200 (9th Cir. 1974).
Reversed and remanded for entry of summary judgment for appellant.