417 F. App'x 934
Fed. Cir.2011Background
- In 1998, Dalton Wilson, Underwood's predecessor, erected a large tire dam on federal land within Underwood Canyon in the Simpson Park Wilderness Study Area.
- The Bureau of Land Management ordered removal of the dam; Wilson refused, leading to trespass findings under the Land Act.
- Wilson appealed to an Interior Board which held that Wilson's predecessors lacked a valid right-of-way to construct the dam, despite recognizing state water rights.
- The Interior Board's decision prompted related district court actions; removal of tires occurred and costs for dam removal were sought by the government.
- The Claims Court initially found Underwood could not show a cognizable property interest due to the Interior Board finding, and thus stayed proceedings to allow challenges in Nevada courts.
- Eventually, the Claims Court ruled that issue preclusion barred Underwood from relitigating the right-of-way issue, making the takings claim fail.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether issue preclusion bars relitigation of property interest | Underwood | Government | Issue precluded; Underwood bound by predecessor decisions |
| Whether Underwood can relitigate the Interior Board’s right-of-way ruling | Underwood | Government | Relitigation barred; cannot relitigate the right-of-way issue |
| Whether procedural due process rights were violated | Underwood | Government | Arguments meritless; court lacks jurisdiction and grounds fail |
| Whether the Interior Board has jurisdiction to decide water-rights questions | Underwood | Government | Board jurisdiction not challenged successfully; issue lacks merit |
| Whether Brady violation occurred by concealing a state engineer’s ruling | Underwood | Government | No Brady violation; ruling not exculpatory and not in criminal context |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Utah Construction & Mining Co., 384 U.S. 394 (Sup. Ct. 1966) (issue preclusion in administrative adjudications where board acted judicially)
- In re Freeman, 30 F.3d 1459 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (requirements for applying issue preclusion in subsequent actions)
- Innovad Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 260 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (six-factor test for nonparty issue preclusion)
- Taylor v. Sturgell, 128 S. Ct. 2161 (Sup. Ct. 2008) (nonparty preclusion exceptions to general rule)
- Vereda, Ltda. v. United States, 271 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (Claims Court review constraints on district court decisions)
- Klump v. United States, 38 Fed. Cl. 243 (1997) (interior board decisions can have issue preclusion effects)