Document: 351 U.S. 173 76 S.Ct. 745 100 L.Ed. 1065 Bill HATAHLEY et al., Petitioners,v.UNITED STATES of America. No. 231. Argued March 26—27, 1956. Decided May 7, Mr.Norman M. Littell, Washington, D.C., for petitioners. Mr. Roger P. Marquis, respondent. Justice CLARK delivered the opinion Court. 1 Petitioners, either families Navajo Indians, seek damages under Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1346(b), 2671 seq., destruction their horses by agents Government. The District Court allowed $100,000 and enjoined Government its from further interference with Appeals Tenth Circuit reversed, 220 F.2d 666, on ground that Utah abandoned horse statute, Code Ann., 1653, 47—2, was properly invoked government agents. We do not agree Appeals. 2 Petitioners are wards They have lived time immemorial in stone timber hogans public land San Juan County, Utah. This bleak area southeastern corner State is directly north Indian Reservation. While some reservation come into to graze livestock, petitioners claim always there year round. herdsmen generations they grazed livestock this land. a simple primitive people. Their living derived entirely animals, little corn able grow family plots, wild game pine nuts itself affords. found horses, as petitioners' beasts burden only means transportation, were essential existence.1 3 In 1934 enacted Taylor Grazing 48 Stat. 1269, 43 U.S.C. § 315, which provided regulation use these lands. permits issued white operators, number years permittees common petitioners, who continued peaceable occupation claimed ancestral home. Limited forage made disputes between stockmen Indians inevitable, about 1950 both operators filed suits remove land.2 addition legal proceedings, another method employed Beginning September 1952 continuing until sometime after present suit Court, Department Interior's range manager vigorously prosecuted campaign round up destroy horses. action taken pursuant 1953, provides Board County Commissioners may authorize elimination 'abandoned' open range. An defined one running at large branded or, if branded, tax preceding has been paid. During roundup total 115 38 burros belonging sold or destroyed. Some locally. shot carcasses left Most however, trucked 350 miles away Provo, Utah, where horse-meat plant glue factory. amount such sales, $1,700, retained Advisory composed local stockmen. No part it paid offered 4 There considerable evidence record show statute applied discriminatorily against Indians. instance assistant watched bluff while petitioner Hosteen Sakezzie released his corral. Later, short distance away, same agent supervised drove them 35 through night corral loaded trucks plant. three other trailed entrucking point but reclaim them. On occasion five during belonged returned owners payment nominal $2.50 head, Little Wagon told charge would be $60 an known far above means. For most part, facts unchallenged here.3 5 did reach question liability since concluded agents' actions authorized statute. cannot dispose case so easily. 6 Act seeks provide beneficial protect grazing rights districts creates. Chournos v. United States, 10 Cir., 193 321. Section 1270, 315a, Secretary Interior shall 'make rules regulations * any all things necessary accomplish purposes Act.' Pursuant authorization Range Code, CFR 161.1 seq. Unauthorized federal removal trespassing expressly 161.11(b) Code: 7 '(b) Unlawful range; livestock; impoundment. Whenever consists unlawfully range, notice served alleged violator will order cause removed immediately within reasonable specified. If fails comply proceed exercise proprietary right States impoundment law procedure, practicable; otherwise he refer matter usual channels appropriate violator.' 8 section requires written notice, 161.11(a),4 together violator. Only 'if notice' procedure. It clear failure express conditions precedent employment procedures. is, course, activities controlled provisions.5 required follow procedures established. 9 held no inconsistency state because pertained individual aimed loose agree. As we read it, directed sense ownerless, located, rather considered statutory definition. 'at upon range,' definition depends branding prior assessment without consideration whether owned someone and, so, owner can located. recognized: 'The dictionary term application.' F.2d, page 672. Furthermore, replete actually know had abandoned. that, 'said knew beyond possible doubt whom said belonged'; 'the employees defendant brands used plaintiffs well plaintiffs'; 'were daily performance work owners, plaintiffs, defendant's employees.' face findings, disturbed Appeals, contended unable specific provision regulated actions. Nor attempt provisions Code. reasons hold invoked. circumstances specifically failed terms requisite given. 11 But, having authority, faced liable wrongful tortious acts committed enforce administer. believe case. 12 1346[b] Title 28, authorizes 'loss property caused negligent act employee acting scope office employment, private person, claimant accordance place occurred.' here law. Under employer third persons willful torts furtherance employer's interests force could contemplated employment. Cf. Barney Jewel Tea Co., 104 292, 139 P.2d 878. Both obtained here. attempting law, enforcement must contemplate least stock fact actual authority procedure does affect liability. area, albeit narrow one, agent, like yet note also 1346(b) 'wrongful' 'negligent' acts. earlier pointed out word intended include situations involving "trespasses' might strictly negligent.' Dalehite 346 15, 45, 73 956, 972, 97 1427. 13 2680, bar that: 14 chapter title apply to— 15 '(a) Any based omission Government, exercising due care, execution regulation, valid, perform discretionary function duty agency discretion involved abused.' 16 first portion (a) here, care 'Due care' implies minimal concern others. Here, proceeded complete disregard second exempt concerned problem 'discretionary function' see supra. These trespasses agents, give rise compensable Act. 17 awarded lump sum $100,000, sought jointly. Apparently award value consequential deprivation 'mental pain suffering.' determined committed, subject limitations 'interest judgment punitive damages.' 2674, 2674. But findings sufficient particularity reviewed. Here merely prayed complaint. allot particular 30 varying numbers burros. apportionment among unless assumed valued equally, assumption suffering each petitioner. assumptions absence pertinent totally inadequate review. remanded regard. 18 Since possess power enjoin neither over never acquired personal jurisdiction. That dissolving injunction affirmed. remainder reversed proceedings inconsistent opinion. 19 Reversed remanded. example, Findings Fact states: 'Wood fuel available fires, certain times travel 20 drag haul wood camps hogans. Water scarce carried burro distances camps. Trips areas often require trips 150 miles, sites ceremonies functions people miles. Seventy-five mile hunting expeditions done esteem horses.' dismissed 93 F.Supp. 745. dismissal reinstated complaint, Tse-Kesi, 191 518. later June 27, reason moot moved longer brought several court resulted enjoining including lands question. Young Felornia, 121 646, 244 862. A petition certiorari pending before started. Certiorari subsequently denied, 344 886, 186, 685. challenge level general trial conducted atmosphere bias prejudice factual conclusions should relied on. noted 'that tried maximum emotion minimum judicial impartiality.' 670. After oral argument thorough record, find improperly vitiate findings. See National Labor Relations Donnelly Garment 330 219, 236—237, 67 756, 765, 91 854. '§ 161.11 Procedure regulations—(a) Service notice. appears violation Districts, set forth constituting reference Districts violated. Such person registered mail affidavit making service registry receipt preserved.' 1275, 315n, reserves 'statutes police regulation' exclusive invocation statutes

Category: 7