30 U.S.C. § 227
Omitted
[omitted]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8
cases, 1927–1978 · leading case: United States v. Pan-Am. Petroleum Co., 55 F.2d 753 (9th Cir. 1932).
United States v. Pan-Am. Petroleum Co., 55 F.2d 753 (9th Cir. 1932). “* * * ” 30 USCA § 227. A section of temporary character, 18a (34 USCA § 524a note) dealt with the manner of settlement of claims: “That whenever the validity of any gas or petroleum placer claim under pre-existing law to land embraced in the executive order of withdrawal issued…”
Witbeck v. Hardeman, 51 F.2d 450 (5th Cir. 1931). ““Section 18 [30 USCA § 227] provides that ‘all leases hereunder shall inure to the benefit of the claimant and all persons claiming through or under him.”
Medallion Oil Co. v. Hinckley, 92 F.2d 155 (9th Cir. 1937). “Sections 18 and 19 of this act ( 30 U.S.C.A. §§ 227 , 228) gave preference rights for a period of six months to bona fide occupants or *158 claimants of oil or gas lands under claims initiated prior to any withdrawal of such lands from location or entry.”
Miller v. Consol. Royalty Oil Co., 23 F.2d 317 (8th Cir. 1927). “Section 18 of said Act (30 USCA § 227). Some of the defendant, lessee corporations or their assignors made applications for leases of these lands.”
Parker v. Sinclair, 25 F.2d 570 (2d Cir. 1928). “437 , 443 [30 USCA § 227]), and the Naval Appropriation Act of June 4, 1920 ( 41 Stat.”
Gulf Oil Corp. v. Andrus, 460 F. Supp. 15 (C.D. Cal. 1978). “” This language differed from that contained in Sections 18 and 19 of the Act, 30 U.S.C. §§ 227 and 228, wherein oil and gas produced from and used on the lease for production purposes were specifically exempted from royalty payments.”
Sullivan v. Mammoth Oil Co., 22 F.2d 663 (8th Cir. 1927). “* * * ” 30 USCA § 227. Appellant has not relinquished to the United States all his right, title and interest claimed and possessed prior to July 3, 1910, and continuously since by him or his predecessor, nor paid as royalty to the United States an amount equal to the value, at…”
Obispo Oil Co. v. Welch, 48 F.2d 872 (S.D. Cal. 1931). “In February, 1920, a further act was passed with the evident purpose of furnishing a means of adjustment where questions of dispute had arisen as to the application of the withdrawal order of September 27, 1909 (30 USCA § 227). This act provided that if within six months after…”
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.