U.S. Code » Title 30 » Chapter CHAPTER 3— LANDS CONTAINING COAL, OIL, GAS, SALTS, ASPHALTIC MATERIALS, SODIUM, SULPHUR, AND BUILDING STONE › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER VIII— BUILDING STONE OR SALINE LAND ENTRIES UNDER PLACER-MINING LAWS

30 U.S.C. § 161

Entry of building-stone lands; previous law unaffected

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 30 CasesGoogle Scholar

Any person authorized to enter lands under the mining laws of the United States may enter lands that are chiefly valuable for building stone under the provisions of the law in relation to placer mineral claims. Lands reserved for the benefit of the public schools or donated to any State shall not be subject to entry under this section. Nothing contained in this section shall be construed to repeal section 471 of title 16 relating to the establishment of national forests.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases, 1957–1996 · leading case: United States v. Coleman, 390 U.S. 599 (1968).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Coleman, 390 U.S. 599 (1968). · cites it 4× “§ 22 1 and make the land “chiefly valuable for building stone” under 30 U. S. C. § 161 . 2 The Secretary of the Interior held that to qualify as “valuable mineral deposits” under 30 U.”
Watt v. W. Nuclear, Inc., 462 U.S. 36 (1983). · cites it 2× “348 , 30 U. S. C. § 161 (making building stone a locatable mineral).”
Alfred Coleman & Edward J. McClennan v. United States, 363 F.2d 190 (9th Cir. 1966). · cites it 4× “The eighteen mining claims in question were located as building stone claims ( 30 U.S.C. § 161 ) 1 on the dry bed of Baldwin Lake and an adjoining mountain within the San Bernardino National Forest during the period of 1949 to 1952.”
Hansen Bros. Enter., Inc. v. Bd. of Supervisors, 907 P.2d 1324 (Cal. 1996). · cites it 2× “348 ; 30 U.S.C. § 161 .) That law was effectively repealed in part in 1955 when an additional statute was enacted, which provided that deposits of "common varieties of sand, stone, gravel, pumice, pumicite, or cinders shall not be deemed a valuable mineral deposit within the…”
Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co. v. Anderson, 629 P.2d 512 (Alaska 1981). · cites it 2× “Thus, besides satisfying the marketability and prudent person tests, Anderson had the further burden of proving that the slate located in his claim had "distinct and special value.”
Kenneth McClarty v. Sec'y of the Interior, 408 F.2d 907 (9th Cir. 1969). · cites it 2× “348 , 30 U.S.C. § 161 , authorizing mining locations of lands chiefly valuable for building stone remains viable and “effective as to building stone that has ‘some property giving it distinct and special value’.”
United States v. Richard P. Haskins, 505 F.2d 246 (9th Cir. 1974). · cites it 3× “§ 38 (based on adverse possession under state law), and under 30 U.S.C. § 161 authorizing entry on lands chiefly valuable for building stone under the provisions of the law in relation to placer mineral claims.”
R. W. Brubaker, Who is Also Known as Ronald W. Brubaker v. Rogers C. B. Morton, as Sec'y of the Interior of the United States Ofamerica, 500 F.2d 200 (9th Cir. 1974). “§ 161 , authorizing mining locations of lands chiefly valuable for building stone, remains viable and effective as to building stone that has some property giving it distinct and special value. Appellants argue that the stone on their claims, which is used primarily for…”
Fuller Ex Rel. Fuller v. Mountain Sculpture, 314 P.2d 842 (Utah 1957). · cites it 2× “30 U.S.C.A. § 161 provides: "Any person authorized to enter lands under the mining laws of the United States may enter lands that are chiefly valuable for building stone under the provisions of the law in relation to placer-mineral claims.”
Bowen v. Sil-Flo Corp., 451 P.2d 626 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1969). “30 U.S.C.A. § 161 reads, in part, as follows: “Any person authorized to enter lands under the mining laws of the United States may enter lands that are chiefly valuable for building stone under the provisions of the law in relation to placer-mineral claims.”
Rawls v. United States, 566 F.2d 1373 (9th Cir. 1978). “§ 611 does apply and precludes mineral entry unless there was a valid discovery before July 23, 1955. Appellants assert that this sandstone is a building stone and that a valid claim can therefore be established after 1955 under the provisions of 30 U.”
Bowen v. Chemi-Cote Perlite Corp., 423 P.2d 104 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1967). “(Emphasis added) 30 U.S.C.A. § 161 . There is testimony in the court below that the passage of this Act caused some change in the thinking of those involved in the mining industry as to whether “hard rock” might be located as placer.”
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.