In any instrument heretofore or hereafter executed purporting to sever the surface and
mineral estates or to grant a mineral estate or to grant a right to extract minerals, which
fails to state or describe in express and specific terms the method of coal extraction to be
employed, or where said instrument contains language subordinating the surface estate to
the mineral estate, it shall be held, in the absence of clear and convincing evidence to the
contrary, that the intention of the parties to the instrument was that the coal be extracted
only by the method or methods of commercial coal extraction commonly known to be in
use in Kentucky in the area affected at the time the instrument was executed, and that the
mineral estate be dominant to the surface estate only for the purposes of coal extraction
by the method or methods of commercial coal extraction commonly known to be in use in
Kentucky in the area affected at the time the instrument was executed.
Effective: July 13, 1984
History: Created 1984 Ky. Acts ch. 28, sec. 2, effective July 13, 1984.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
6
cases, 1984–2013 · leading case:
Akers v. Baldwin, 736 S.W.2d 294 (Ky. 1987).
Akers v. Baldwin, 736 S.W.2d 294 (Ky. 1987).
· cites it 14× “ For the purpose of KRS 381.940, "method" and "methods" mean underground, surface, auger, or open pit mining and nothing in KRS 381.”
Ward v. Harding, 860 S.W.2d 280 (Ky. 1993).
· cites it 8× “In Akers , this Court's plurality opinion invalidated a portion of KRS 381.940 which is virtually identical to the Constitutional Amendment here under review.”
Karst-Robbins Coal Co. v. Arch of Kentucky, Inc., 964 S.W.2d 419 (Ky. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 11× “Moreover, Akers also declared that KRS 381.940, which was passed in response to Buchanan and which in effect prevented all strip mining under broad form deeds, was unconstitutional.”
United States v. Stearns Co., 595 F. Supp. 808 (E.D. Ky. 1984).
“Since the time of the trial, the Kentucky General Assembly has passed a new statute, KRS 381.940, which provides: In any instrument heretofore or hereafter executed purporting to sever the surface and mineral estates or to grant a mineral estate or to grant a right to extract…”
Taylor v. Coal-Mac, Inc., 864 S.W.2d 302 (Ky. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 2× “940 provided that in instruments subordinating the surface estate to the mineral estate, in the absence of clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, the intentions of the parties to the instrument were that the coal was to be extracted only by those methods in common use in…”
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.