Central Utah Project Litigation Documents

Page 81

Cl. 543, 569, 390 F 2d. 6S6, 701 (1968) aff'r, in nart, rev'p in part, Docket 350-1-, 16 lud. Cl. Coram. 341 (1965).) Accordingly, an evaluation date which is agreed to by the parties with the approval of the Commission, dispenses with the necessity of further proof on the question of the dates of extinguishment of plaintiff's aboriginal title-vrbat it: is no indication of collusion between the parties. Since no objection to the evaluation date for the Nevada lands v/as raised until long after the date was approved, expensive appraisal studies based upon the date were made for both parties herein, and a valuation trial held and a decision based thereon issued, only the possibility of serious injustice would warrant reconsideration of the stipulated date. We find no basis for petitioners' charge of collusion. To clarify our conclusion, one further argument In support of the charge of collusion will be noted. The petitioners, members of the plaintiff Western Shoshone Bands, disagree with the plaintiff's counsel about the proper presentation of the claim in this docket. However, the contention of the petitioners, that their position is not rightfully represented by the plaintiff's counsel, does not support their charges of collusion against the plaintiff's counsel and the defendant. Tire petitioners' reliance on cases involving class actions is of no avail in trying to establish collusion between the plaintiff's counsel and the defendant because the class action cases involved individuals having separate rights, some of whom were not represented, and these arc clearly distinguishable from cases involving the interests in tribal