North Dakota v. Badlands Conservation Alliance, No. 14-1785 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseBillings, Golden Valley, McKenzie, and Slope Counties in North Dakota, and the state, sued the United States under the Quiet Title Act, 28 U.S.C. 2409a, seeking to quiet title to alleged rights-of-way along section lines that run through lands owned by the federal government in the Dakota Prairie Grasslands and managed by the U.S. Forest Service. They alleged that in North Dakota, with a few exceptions, a public easement provides a right-of-way for public travel within 33 feet on either side of the section lines. The federal government does not recognize these rights-of-way. Nonprofit environmental organizations sought to intervene as defendants as of right under FRCP 24(a) or permissive intervention under Rule 24(b). They alleged that they possess important aesthetic, recreational, and environmental interests in preserving the Grasslands. The district court denied the motion to intervene as of right, finding that they failed to show injury in-fact or a recognized interest in the suit’s subject matter and that the United States adequately represented any legally protectable interest. The court also denied the alternative request for permissive intervention. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, finding that the groups did not overcome the presumption of adequate representation and noting that permissive intervention is “wholly discretionary.”
Court Description: Colloton, Author,with Loken and Beam, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Quiet Title Act of 1972. Where four North Dakota counties sued the United States to quiet title to alleged rights-of-way along section lines that run throughout lands owned by the United States in the Dakota Prairie Grassland area in North Dakota, the district court did not err in denying a motion by three nonprofit environmental groups to intervene; the groups had not overcome of the presumption of adequate representation by the United States and the court did not err in denying their motion to intervene as of right under Rule 24(a); the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying permissive intervention out of concerns over the delay which could arise by the interjection of issues unrelated to quieting title.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.