County of Bonner, State of Idaho v. Harold Anderson, Supervisor Kanikau National Forest

439 F.2d 764
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided May 10, 1971·No. 23535·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The judgment of dismissal is affirmed.

We can find no authority that forest supervisor Anderson is or was a proper party to represent the government’s interest in what is essentially a quiet title action. (So, we do not reach other questions.) Malone v. Bowdoin, 369 U.S. 643, 82 S.Ct. 980, 8 L.Ed.2d 168, is clearly applicable here.

The situation would be different if it were alleged in the complaint that the supervisor is acting outside his authority or is violating some federal statute.

As a matter of policy, it seems a shame that the County of Bonner cannot find a forum or a proper party to sue to test its claim to the land in question. In other fields, the government has created the Court of Claims and the Federal Tort Claims Act for its citizens.

We wonder why the government won’t sue the County of Bonner, as it may, to quiet title, rather than laughing at its contentions and saying, “If you have a right, you can’t vindicate it.”

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

County of Bonner, State of Idaho v. Harold Anderson, Supervisor Kanikau National Forest, 439 F.2d 764 (9th Cir. 1971).

439 F.2d 764 (County of Bonner, State of Idaho v. Harold Anderson, Supervisor Kanikau National Forest) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Carlson v. United States
556 F.2d 489 (Court of Claims, 1977)
Bourgeois v. United States
545 F.2d 727 (Court of Claims, 1976)