North Dakota v. United States, No. 20-3492 (8th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Counties sued to quiet title to section line rights-of-way within the Little Missouri National Grassland, a section of the Dakota Prairie Grasslands, and six roads located in McKenzie County. The State also sought to quiet title to section line rights-of-way in the Little Missouri grassland and two other parts of the Dakota Prairie Grasslands. The district court granted the government’s motion to dismiss all of the State’s claims and the Counties’ claim as to the Little Missouri National Grassland, and Plaintiffs appealed.
The court found the statute of limitations began to run as to the Counties when they “knew or should have known” of the government’s claim. The statute of limitations would not begin to run as to the State until the government issued “public communications” that were “sufficiently specific as to be reasonably calculated” to give the State notice. Here, the Travel Plans and Public Notices were sufficient notice of the government’s exclusive claim to the 33 feet on either side of the section lines within the Dakota Prairie Grasslands over which Plaintiffs claim a right-of-way.
Plaintiffs also argue that if the court finds that the Travel Plans and Public Notices did put Plaintiffs on notice, any such notice was only as to the section lines that fall within the specific areas where motor vehicle access was restricted. The court found that the Travel Plans and Public Notices made an adverse claim as to all the national grasslands within North Dakota, including areas over which USFS chose not to restrict travel.
Court Description: [Kelly, Author, with Colloton and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Quiet Title. In this action to quiet title to certain portions of the Dakota Prairie Grasslands managed by the U.S. Forest Service, the Travel Plans and Public Notices issued by the Forest Service were sufficient to give plaintiffs notice, as defined by the Quiet Title Act- 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2409a - that the government had the power to restrict access to the 33 feet on either side of the section lines within the Grasslands, and, as a result, the plaintiffs knew of or should of known of the government's claims, and the plaintiffs' claims were time barred.
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.