The locators of all mining locations made on any mineral vein, lode, or ledge, situated on the public domain, their heirs and assigns, where no adverse claim existed on the 10th day of May 1872 so long as they comply with the laws of the United States, and with State, territorial, and local regulations not in conflict with the laws of the United States governing their possessory title, shall have the exclusive right of possession and enjoyment of all the surface included within the lines of their locations, and of all veins, lodes, and ledges throughout their entire depth, the top or apex of which lies inside of such surface lines extended downward vertically, although such veins, lodes, or ledges may so far depart from a perpendicular in their course downward as to extend outside the vertical side lines of such surface locations. But their right of possession to such outside parts of such veins or ledges shall be confined to such portions thereof as lie between vertical planes drawn downward as above described, through the end lines of their locations, so continued in their own direction that such planes will intersect such exterior parts of such veins or ledges. Nothing in this section shall authorize the locator or possessor of a vein or lode which extends in its downward course beyond the vertical lines of his claim to enter upon the surface of a claim owned or possessed by another.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
116
cases (
6 in the last 5 years), 1887–2026 · leading case:
People v. Rinehart, 377 P.3d 818 (Cal. 2016).
People v. Rinehart, 377 P.3d 818 (Cal. 2016).
· cites it 6× “( 30 U.S.C. §§ 26 , 35; Granite Rock, at p.”
United States v. Locke, 471 U.S. 84 (1985).
· cites it 2× “"Discovery" of a mineral deposit, followed by the minimal procedures required to formally "locate" the deposit, gives an individual the right of exclusive possession of the land for mining purposes, 30 U. S. C. § 26 ; as long as $100 of assessment work is performed annually, the…”
Tosco Corp. v. Hodel, 611 F. Supp. 1130 (D. Colo. 1985).
· cites it 5× “30 U.S.C. § 26 provides in part that “[t]he locators of all mining locations .”
California Coastal Comm'n v. Granite Rock Co., 480 U.S. 572 (1987).
· cites it 2× “If a person locates a valuable mineral deposit on federal land, and perfects the claim by properly staking it and complying with other statutory requirements, the claimant "shall have the exclusive right of possession and enjoyment of all the surface included within the lines of…”
Watt v. W. Nuclear, Inc., 462 U.S. 36 (1983).
· cites it 2× “30 U. S. C. § 26 . Congress plainly contemplated that mineral deposits on SRHA lands would be subject to location under the mining laws, [11] and the Department of the Interior has consistently permitted prospectors to make entries under the mining laws on SRHA lands.”
Joshua Bohmker v. State of Oregon, 903 F.3d 1029 (9th Cir. 2018).
· cites it 2× “30 U.S.C. § 26 (emphasis added). To protect this right to exclusive possession, a locator annually must perform $100 worth of labor or carry out improvements worth $100 in value.”
Silver Surprize, Inc. v. Sunshine Mining Co., 445 P.2d 334 (Wash. 1968).
· cites it 4× “The defendant's theory is that the Yankee Girl vein apexes outside the Surprize Group on property owned or claiie` by it, or by a third party, Sunshine Consolidated, and that 30 U.S.C. § 26 (1964) accords it extralateral rights to follow the vein into the Surprize Group.”
Reoforce, Inc. v. United States, 853 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
“2d 64 (1985) (quoting 30 U.S.C. § 26 ). A locator secures mining rights only by discovering a valuable mineral, and Congress has made clear that “common varieties of sand, stone, gravel, pumice, pumicite, or cinders” are not valuable mineral deposits under the Mining Law.”
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.