I'm trying my best to find an old survey case study I remember reading about. I think the gist of it is, a center of section monument wasn't found at the mathematical intersection of quarter lines, but the BLM accepted it anyway because so many private surveys were based on it, even though the person who set the C1/4 monument used erroneous exterior 1/4 corner monuments, or stubbed it in, or something like that. I'm just vaguely remembering the details. I think it was in the Pacific Northwest somewhere (possibly WA).
I'm fairly certain it was an IBLA case from either CFedS coursework, BLM case file, or some other source used as a lesson example. Does anyone remember/know where to find this case? Thanks in advance.
Are you thinking of Dykes v. Arnold
Decided Guidance: Dykes v. Arnold - The American Surveyor (amerisurv.com)
No Federal Interest was in Dykes v Arnold so BLM was not involved.
I am guessing that you might be thinking of the 1981 IBLA Scherbel v BLM in WY.
In this one it was a matter of the evidence of a 1/4 used by the private surveyor (fence cor) to establish the C1/4 was gone when BLM arrived. BLM propd the missing 1/4 vs inside out using the private survey's interior CS1/16 and C1/4. BLM did accept the interior cors even though they propd the 1/4 based on orig record. The prop position was about 5 ft from the inside out position if I recall correctly. I don't recall any other details and I could be slightly off with what I do remember. Interesting one anyway.
A pdf of this case is attached.
What is propd? Proportioned?
Like former coworkers have told me... paper is cheap so print it out. Electric paper is even cheaper so feel free to spell it out. 😛 I had to nag my drafters for a while to get them to stop abbreviating things on my surveys when there are miles of white space that can be used.
😆you got it propd is proportioned. Being lazy I guess
I would be very careful using any particular case. There doesn't seem to be a consensus when to accept or reject interior corners by the feds.
But, as always the more study you can get information from the better.
The propd corner will never exactly fit the established one.
I'm remembering that drawing from Dykes V. Arnold, but I also remember the details of the Scherbel case. I guess I studied both these cases back in school, so I'm probably just combining the details of them in my head, since they are similar situations. Dykes V. Arnold and the Scherbel case are both relevant. Thank you two for helping me out!
