Mining claims upon veins or lodes of quartz or other rock in place bearing gold, silver, cinnabar, lead, tin, copper, or other valuable deposits, located prior to May 10, 1872, shall be governed as to length along the vein or lode by the customs, regulations, and laws in force at the date of their location. A mining claim located after the 10th day of May 1872, whether located by one or more persons, may equal, but shall not exceed, one thousand five hundred feet in length along the vein or lode; but no location of a mining claim shall be made until the discovery of the vein or lode within the limits of the claim located. No claim shall extend more than three hundred feet on each side of the middle of the vein at the surface, nor shall any claim be limited by any mining regulation to less than twenty-five feet on each side of the middle of the vein at the surface, except where adverse rights existing on the 10th day of May 1872 render such limitation necessary. The end lines of each claim shall be parallel to each other.
Notes of Decisions
Sunburst Minerals, LLC v. Emerald Copper Corp., 300 F. Supp. 3d 1056 (D. Ariz. 2018).
· cites it 2× “117-1 at 132 (Sunburst's owner testifying that "Emerald has pointed out in this lawsuit ... that Sunburst doesn't actually own any of these claims.”
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Usfws, 33 F.4th 1202 (9th Cir. 2022).
· cites it 3× “See 30 U.S.C. § 23 (“[N]o location of a mining claim shall be made until the discovery of the vein or lode within the limits of the claim located.”
Earthworks v. DOI, 105 F.4th 449 (D.C. Cir. 2024).
· cites it 4× “See 30 U.S.C. § 23 . For these reasons, we conclude that the grammatical struc- ture and history of Section 42 and the precedent regarding re- lated provisions of the Mining Law support the BLM’s inter- pretation of the statute.”
Cuprite Mine Partners v. John Anderson, 809 F.3d 548 (9th Cir. 2015).
“30 U.S.C. § 23 . 2 . After the expiration of the sixty-day deadline, another company submitted an "expression of interest” to the commissioner.”
Golden Condor, Inc. v. Bell, 739 P.2d 385 (Idaho 1987).
· cites it 2× “" The 1984 Court of Appeals opinion was more informative: Public land within the designated confines of a mining district is open to mining claims under federal and state law.”
Multiple Use, Inc. v. Morton, 353 F. Supp. 184 (D. Ariz. 1972).
· cites it 4× “The location of a mining claim gives the locator certain rights against rival mining claimants, but as against the United States the locator of a mining claim on the public domain has only “taken the initial steps in *190 seeking to secure a gratuity from the Government.”
Baker v. United States, 613 F.2d 224 (9th Cir. 1980).
“§§ 35 , 36 (limit on the size of placer claims); 30 U.S.C. § 23 (limit on the size of claims on veins or lodes).”
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.