holding the “disputed title” requirement of the QTA can be satisfied by a third-party’s assertion of an interest of the United States that “clouds the plaintiffs title”
How later courts described this case
- holding the “disputed title” requirement of the QTA can be satisfied by a third-party’s assertion of an interest of the United States that “clouds the plaintiffs title”
- concluding that a quiet title action may be brought when “the United States claimed, and continues to claim, reserved easements in [another’s] property”
- discussing Leisnoi, Inc. v. United States (Leisnoi I), 170 F.3d 1188, 1191 (9th Cir. 1999)
- discussing applicability of holding from Leisnoi
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
GRABER, Circuit Judge, specially
concurring:
I concur in the result, because it is compelled by the majority’s rationale in Leisnoi, Inc. v. United States, 170 F.3d 1188 (9th Cir.1999). But, for the reasons explained in my concurrence in that earlier appeal, I do not believe that a third party can claim an interest on behalf of the *1026 United States for purposes of the Quiet Title Act.