Appellant Brief - Turtle Talk

387, 389 (5th Cir. 1970) (“It is well settled that a special or more particular
clause . . . must prevail over a general clause”).
Here, the District Court held that the stipulation’s blanket language satisfied
section 256.7. The District Court stated:
The Commissioner clearly agreed to abide by ‘all’ applicable rules
and regulations; clauses (d) and (e) were unquestionably applicable
regulations; and thus the Commissioner unquestionably agreed to
abide by clauses (d) and (e) (along with the rest of 25 C.F.R. § 256.7).
A08. In addition, although the District Court could not answer why the stipulation
specified only three of the five conditions, it concluded that the omission of the
remaining two conditions “is also not important.” Id.
The District Court’s analysis is limited and misguided. First, it wholly
ignored the requirement that the stipulation “expressly agree[]” to the five
conditions listed in 25 C.F.R. § 256.7. Agreeing to “all pertinent rules and
regulations of the Department of Interior” does not constitute “expressly agreeing”
to the conditions specified in section 256.7. Second, the District Court ignored the
relevance of the stipulation’s omission of two of the five required conditions. In
expressly listing three out of the five conditions, the Commissioner intentionally
left out the remaining two required conditions. The District Court found the
omission to be superfluous, contrary to the express command of § 256.7.
51