U.S. Code » Title 16 » Chapter CHAPTER 39— MINING ACTIVITY WITHIN NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM AREAS

16 U.S.C. § 1910

Repealed. Pub. L. 113–287, § 7, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3272

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 16 CasesGoogle Scholar

[repealed]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1985–2007 · leading case: Klk, Inc. v. United States Dep't of the Interior, 35 F.3d 454 (9th Cir. 1994).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Klk, Inc. v. United States Dep't of the Interior, 35 F.3d 454 (9th Cir. 1994). · cites it 3× “Pursuant to Section 11 of the Mining in the Parks Act (“MPA”), 16 U.S.C. § 1910 , KLK brought an inverse condemnation 1 action against the DOI in the United States district court seeking just compensation for the five mining claims.”
Hafen v. United States, 30 Fed. Cl. 470 (Fed. Cl. 1994). · cites it 2× “§ 1331 (1994); 16 U.S.C. § 1910 ; and Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.”
Nequoia Ass'n v. Dep't of the Interior of the United States, 626 F. Supp. 827 (D. Utah 1985). · cites it 4× “Under the second cause, plaintiffs argue that they are entitled to compensation for the taking of their property pursuant to 16 U.S.C. § 1910 . The prayer for relief asks this court for a judgment declaring the BLM and IBLA decisions void and of no force and also declaring the…”
United States v. 191.07 Acres of Land, & Milan Martinek, 482 F.3d 1132 (9th Cir. 2007). “When Martinek filed his second inverse condemnation action against the United States in the district court, alleging that the mining claims had been the subject of a regulatory taking before the United States filed its Declaration of Taking, the district court only had…”
Alaska Limestone Corp. v. Hodel, 614 F. Supp. 642 (D. Alaska 1985). “16 U.S.C. § 1910 (1982). 15 . Although the Secretary could properly make his validity determination in accordance with these established administrative procedures, as he chose to do in this case, see Best v.”
United States v. Martinek (9th Cir. 2007). “When Martinek filed his second inverse condemnation action against the United States in the district court, alleging that the mining claims had been the subject of a regulatory taking before the United States filed its Declaration of Taking, the district court only had…”
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.