Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 California opinions name it 1 courts 2014–2017 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Pathfinder Mines Corp. v. Hodelgreen2 sentences2017(See Western Aggregates, supra, 101 Cal.App.4th at pp. 293-294.) Since that time, after locating a claim and performing certain work and other requirements, the “holder of a perfected mining claim may secure a patent to the land by complying with the requirements of the Mining Act and regulations promulgated thereunder . . . and, upon issuance of the patent, legal title to the land passes to the patentholder.” (California Coastal Comm’n v. Granite Rock (1987) 480 U.S. 572, 575-576 [ 94 L.Ed.2d 577, 588 ] (Granite Rock); see Pathfinder Mines Corporation v. Hodel (9th Cir. 1987) 811 F.2d 1288 , 2017(See Western Aggregates, supra, 101 Cal.App.4th at pp. 293-294, 130 Cal.Rptr.2d 436 .) Since that time, after locating a claim and performing certain work and other requirements, the "holder of a perfected mining claim may secure a patent to the land by complying with the requirements of the Mining Act and regulations promulgated thereunder...and, upon issuance of the patent, legal title to the land passes to the patentholder." ( California Coastal Comm'n v. Granite Rock (1987) 480 U.S. 572 , 575-576, 107 S.Ct. 1419 , 1422, 94 L.Ed.2d 577 , 588 ( Granite Rock ); see Pathfinder Mines Corporatio | 3 | 3 |
California Coastal Commission v. Granite Rock Co.green2 sentences2017(See Western Aggregates, supra, 101 Cal.App.4th at pp. 293-294, 130 Cal.Rptr.2d 436 .) Since that time, after locating a claim and performing certain work and other requirements, the "holder of a perfected mining claim may secure a patent to the land by complying with the requirements of the Mining Act and regulations promulgated thereunder...and, upon issuance of the patent, legal title to the land passes to the patentholder." ( California Coastal Comm'n v. Granite Rock (1987) 480 U.S. 572 , 575-576, 107 S.Ct. 1419 , 1422, 94 L.Ed.2d 577 , 588 ( Granite Rock ); see Pathfinder Mines Corporatio 2017(See Western Aggregates, supra, 101 Cal.App.4th at pp. 293-294, 130 Cal.Rptr.2d 436 .) Since that time, after locating a claim and performing certain work and other requirements, the "holder of a perfected mining claim may secure a patent to the land by complying with the requirements of the Mining Act and regulations promulgated thereunder...and, upon issuance of the patent, legal title to the land passes to the patentholder." ( California Coastal Comm'n v. Granite Rock (1987) 480 U.S. 572 , 575-576, 107 S.Ct. 1419 , 1422, 94 L.Ed.2d 577 , 588 ( Granite Rock ); see Pathfinder Mines Corporatio | 2 | 5 |
United States v. Colemangreen2 sentences2014The holder of a perfected mining claim may secure a patent to the land by complying with the requirements of the Mining Act and regulations promulgated thereunder [citation] and, upon issuance of the patent, legal title to the land passes to the patent holder.” (Granite Rock, supra, at pp. 575- 576 [ 94 L.Ed.2d at p. 588 ].) The United States Supreme Court has recognized that the intent of Congress in passing the mining laws “was to reward and encourage the discovery of minerals that are valuable in an economic sense.” (United States v. Coleman (1968) 390 U.S. 599, 602 [ 20 L.Ed.2d 170, 174-17 2014The holder of a perfected mining claim may secure a patent to the land by complying with the requirements of the Mining Act and regulations promulgated thereunder [citation] and, upon issuance of the patent, legal title to the land passes to the patent holder.” (Granite Rock, supra, at pp. 575- 576 [ 94 L.Ed.2d at p. 588 ].) The United States Supreme Court has recognized that the intent of Congress in passing the mining laws “was to reward and encourage the discovery of minerals that are valuable in an economic sense.” (United States v. Coleman (1968) 390 U.S. 599, 602 [ 20 L.Ed.2d 170, 174-17 | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Western Aggregates, Inc. v. County of Yuba
green
2 sentences2017(See Western Aggregates, supra, 101 Cal.App.4th at pp. 293-294.) Since that time, after locating a claim and performing certain work and other requirements, the “holder of a perfected mining claim may secure a patent to the land by complying with the requirements of the Mining Act and regulations promulgated thereunder . . . and, upon issuance of the patent, legal title to the land passes to the patentholder.” (California Coastal Comm’n v. Granite Rock (1987) 480 U.S. 572, 575-576 [ 94 L.Ed.2d 577, 588 ] (Granite Rock); see Pathfinder Mines Corporation v. Hodel (9th Cir. 1987) 811 F.2d 1288 , 2017(See Western Aggregates, supra, 101 Cal.App.4th at pp. 293-294, 130 Cal.Rptr.2d 436 .) Since that time, after locating a claim and performing certain work and other requirements, the "holder of a perfected mining claim may secure a patent to the land by complying with the requirements of the Mining Act and regulations promulgated thereunder...and, upon issuance of the patent, legal title to the land passes to the patentholder." ( California Coastal Comm'n v. Granite Rock (1987) 480 U.S. 572 , 575-576, 107 S.Ct. 1419 , 1422, 94 L.Ed.2d 577 , 588 ( Granite Rock ); see Pathfinder Mines Corporatio | 3 | 2017–2017 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.