C.F.R. » Title 43 » CHAPTER II—BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR › SUBCHAPTER C—MINERALS MANAGEMENT (3000) › PART 3833—RECORDING MINING CLAIMS AND SITES › Subpart A—Recording Process

43 C.F.R. § 3833.1

Why must I record mining claims and sites?

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

FLPMA requires you to record all mining claims and sites with BLM and the local recording office in order to maintain a mining claim or site under the General Mining Law.

(a) If you fail to record a mining claim or site with the BLM and the local recording office by the 90th day after the date of location, it is abandoned and void by operation of law.

(b) Recording a mining claim or site, filing any other documents with BLM, or paying fees or service charges, as this part requires, does not make a claim or site valid if it not otherwise valid under applicable law.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1983–2021 · leading case: Cook v. United States, 37 Fed. Cl. 435 (Fed. Cl. 1997).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Cook v. United States, 37 Fed. Cl. 435 (Fed. Cl. 1997). “§ 1744 ; 43 C.F.R. § 3833.1 . A citizen can secure a patent by fulfilling the requirements for a mining claim plus certain additional requirements.”
Skaw v. United States, 2 Cl. Ct. 795 (Ct. Cl. 1983). “Plaintiffs appealed the decision of BLM’s Idaho State Office that the claims were abandoned and void for failure to file instruments required by 43 C.F.R. § 3833.1 and § 3833.2. The Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA) on April 19,1982, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the…”
Pete Lien & Sons, Inc. v. Zellmer, 2015 SD 30 (S.D. 2015). “43 C.F.R. § 3833.1 (b) states that “Recording a mining claim or site, filing any other documents with BLM, or paying fees or service charges, as this part requires, does not make a claim or site valid if it not otherwise valid under applicable law.”
Graves v. Bernhardt (D. Ariz. 2019). · cites it 2× “Based on the information that she did have – the BLM 2 date stamps and the credit card transaction detail – she concluded that the notices were 3 filed on June 24, 2011, which is the 92nd day and, under 43 C.F.R. § 3833.11 (a), two 4 days late.”
Durand v. Bernhardt (D.D.C. 2021). “§ 1744 (d) (explaining that recordation “shall not render valid any claim which would not be otherwise valid under applicable law”); 43 C.F.R. § 3833.1 (b) (noting that “filing any .”
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.