Opinion ID: 166407
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sierra Club v. Hodel

Text: The Counties, on the other hand, argue that this Court’s decision in Sierra Club v. Hodel, 848 F.2d 1068 (10th Cir. 1988), established that state law, not federal law, governs determinations of R.S. 2477 rights of way. San Juan County argues that in adopting a federal standard, the district court “overruled this Court’s Hodel decision affirming that establishment of a highway under state law perfected the right.” S.J.C. Br. 30; see also id. at 17. More cautiously, Kane and Garfield Counties note that Hodel determined that “state laws govern the scope of R.S. 2477 rights-of-way,” and that the “bases for its analysis” would lead to the same result with respect to the validity of a claimed R.S. 2477 right of way. K&G C. Br. 39. The district court concluded that “[t]he Tenth Circuit’s decision in Hodel addressed only the scope of R.S. 2477 rights-of-way already found to have been 51 established—it did not address the issue in this case, how R.S. 2477 rights-of-way are established in the first place.” 147 F.Supp.2d at 1142 (emphasis in original). For the most part, we agree. In Hodel, the parties conceded the existence of the right of way, and that was not an issue in the case. 848 F.2d at 1079; see id. at 1080 (“The salient issue is whether the scope of R.S. 2477 rights-of-way is a question of state or federal law.”). Even San Juan County concedes that “validity was not at issue in Hodel, only scope.” S.J.C. Br. 20. We therefore hold that Hodel is not determinative of the question.