Ihaarlfs01\Research\OHA Research Library\D
UNITED STATES v. LYLE I. THOMPSON, ET AL. 168 IBLA 64 Decided March 16, 2006 Editors Note: Appeal Filed, No. CV-06-237-E-BLW, (D. Idaho), aff’d, Thompson v. U.S. Dept. of Interior, 2008 WL 564710 (D. Idaho 2008). Appeal Filed, No. 08-35260, (C.A. 9 (Idaho), aff’d, Thompson v. U.S. Department of the Interior, 2009 WL 1974608 (C.A. 9 (Idaho)) June 16, 2009. United States Department of the Interior Office of Hearings and Appeals Interior Board of Land Appeals 801 N. Quincy St., Suite 300 Arlington, VA 22203 UNITED STATES v. LYLE I. THOMPSON, ET AL. IBLA 2002-414 Decided March 16, 2006 Appeal from a decision by Administrative Law Judge James H. Heffernan declaring the Tin Cup #12, #13, and #14 mining claims valid, the Tincup #16 mill site claim valid, and the Tincup #17 mill site claim invalid. IMC 166557-59, 166561-62. Mineral Patent Application IDI-28704. Affirmed in part as modified, and reversed in part. 1. Administrative Procedure: Adjudication--Contests and Protests: Government Contests--Evidence: Presumptions-- Mining Claims: Contests--Rules of Practice: Government Contests--Rules of Practice: Appeals: Jurisdiction Where BLM’s administrative record does not contain a date-stamped copy verifying that BLM timely received contestees’ answer to a Government contest complaint, but the record contains substantial corroborating evidence establishing that it is more probable than not that the document was received timely, the legal presumption of regularity, which would ordinarily operate to force a conclusion that the Answer was untimely, is rebutted, and the Office of Hearings and Appeals retains jurisdiction to adjudicate the contest.
[Show full text]