Filed: Sep. 17, 1962
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 307 F.2d 676 Duncan MILLER, Appellant, v. Stewart L. UDALL, Secretary of the Interior, Appellee. No. 16373. No. 16374. United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit. Argued November 29, 1961. July 26, 1962. Petition for Rehearing En Banc Denied En Banc September 17, 1962. Mr. Chester C. Shore, Washington, D. C., for appellant. Mr. Hugh Nugent, Atty., Dept. of Justice, of the bar of the Supreme Court of Missouri, pro hac vice, by special leave of court, with whom Mr. Ramsey Clark, A
Summary: 307 F.2d 676 Duncan MILLER, Appellant, v. Stewart L. UDALL, Secretary of the Interior, Appellee. No. 16373. No. 16374. United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit. Argued November 29, 1961. July 26, 1962. Petition for Rehearing En Banc Denied En Banc September 17, 1962. Mr. Chester C. Shore, Washington, D. C., for appellant. Mr. Hugh Nugent, Atty., Dept. of Justice, of the bar of the Supreme Court of Missouri, pro hac vice, by special leave of court, with whom Mr. Ramsey Clark, As..
More
307 F.2d 676
Duncan MILLER, Appellant,
v.
Stewart L. UDALL, Secretary of the Interior, Appellee.
No. 16373.
No. 16374.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued November 29, 1961.
July 26, 1962.
Petition for Rehearing En Banc Denied En Banc September 17, 1962.
Mr. Chester C. Shore, Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Mr. Hugh Nugent, Atty., Dept. of Justice, of the bar of the Supreme Court of Missouri, pro hac vice, by special leave of court, with whom Mr. Ramsey Clark, Asst. Atty. Gen., Messrs. Roger P. Marquis and Walter H. Williams, Attys., Dept. of Justice, were on the brief, for appellee. Mr. S. Billingsley Hill and Robert S. Griswold, Jr., Attys., Dept. of Justice, also entered appearances for appellee.
Before WASHINGTON, BASTIAN and BURGER, Circuit Judges.
BURGER, Circuit Judge.
1
Summary judgment for the Secretary of the Interior was granted in the District Court in a suit brought by the appellant to cancel certain leases to public lands issued by the Secretary under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, 41 Stat. 443, 74 Stat. 781 (1960), 30 U.S.C.A. § 226 (Supp.1961), and to have new leases for these same lands issued to the appellant.
2
Appellant himself applied for each of these leases but received none of them, since in each instance it was determined that he was not the first qualified person to have entered an application. The applicant to whom the lease was awarded in each instance was the same person who had relinquished the immediately precedent lease before its term had expired. The process by which the relinquishing lessees were able to obtain new leases is here attacked as having denied to other potential applicants a fair opportunity to obtain the benefits of the Mineral Leasing Act.
3
A careful review of the record makes clear that the Secretary of the Interior and the several lessees whose leases are here challenged fully complied with the letter of these regulations and the statute as they existed at the time, and that the leases were issued to qualified persons first making application for them, consistent with the statutory command. 30 U.S.C.A. § 226 (1958). The judgment and order of the District Court are
Affirmed
