# Leisnoi, Inc. v. United States

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · September 24, 2001 · 267 F.3d 1019

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9494433

## Case

- **Full name:** LEISNOI, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** September 24, 2001
- **Citations:** 267 F.3d 1019; 2001 Daily Journal DAR 10251; 2001 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8308; 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 20849; 2001 WL 1111960
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Graber
- **Judges:** Canby, Graber, Marshall
- **Cited by:** 20 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9494433

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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
- discussing Leisnoi I, 170 F.3d at 1191

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9494433. Public record. Not legal advice.