43 C.F.R. § 3714.3

Protection of existing rights; exclusion of reservation in patents

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

The Act in section 7 provides as follows:

Nothing in this Act shall be construed in any manner to limit or restrict or to authorize the limitation or restriction of any existing rights of any claimant under any valid mining claim heretofore located, except as such rights may be limited or restricted as a result of a proceeding pursuant to section 5 of this Act, or as a result of a waiver and relinquishment pursuant to section 6 of this Act; and nothing in this act shall be construed in any manner to authorize inclusion in any patent hereafter issued under the mining laws of the United States for any mining claim heretofore or hereafter located, of any reservation, limitation, or restriction not otherwise authorized by law, or to limit or repeal any existing authority to include any reservation, limitation, or restriction in any such patent, or to limit or restrict any use of the lands covered by any patented or unpatented mining claim by the United States, its lessees, permittees, and licensees which is otherwise authorized by law.

This section makes it clear that all of the rights of mining claimants existing on the date of the Act are preserved and will continue unless: (a) Claimant fails, subject, however, to the provisions of § 3712.2-7, to file a verified statement in response to a published notice as provided in section 5(b) of the Act and § 3712.2-9; (b) it is determined as a result of a hearing pursuant to section 5(c) that such rights asserted in a verified statement are not valid and effective; (c) the claimant waives and relinquishes his rights pursuant to section 6. It also preserves to all mining claimants the right to a patent unrestricted by anything in the Act and provides that no limitation, reservation or restriction may be inserted in any mineral patent unless authorized by law, but it also makes it clear that all laws in force on the date of its enactment which provide for any such reservation, limitation, or restriction in such patents and all authority of law then existing for the use of lands embraced in unpatented mining claims by the United States, its lessees, permittees, and licensees continue in full force and effect.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 1 case, 1987–1987 · leading case: Barnes v. Hodel, 819 F.2d 250 (9th Cir. 1987).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Barnes v. Hodel, 819 F.2d 250 (9th Cir. 1987). “137 (1964); accord 43 C.F.R. § 3714.3 (1986). Barnes' most attractive argument is that § 615 compels the United States to assert its rights if it wants to preserve them in a § 613 proceeding.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.