Claims usually called “placers,” including all forms of deposit, excepting veins of quartz, or other rock in place, shall be subject to entry and patent, under like circumstances and conditions, and upon similar proceedings, as are provided for vein or lode claims; but where the lands have been previously surveyed by the United States, the entry in its exterior limits shall conform to the legal subdivisions of the public lands. And where placer claims are upon surveyed lands, and conform to legal subdivisions, no further survey or plat shall be required, and all placer-mining claims located after the 10th day of May 1872, shall conform as near as practicable with the United States system of public-land surveys, and the rectangular subdivisions of such surveys, and no such location shall include more than twenty acres for each individual claimant; but where placer claims cannot be conformed to legal subdivisions, survey and plat shall be made as on unsurveyed lands; and where by the segregation of mineral land in any legal subdivision a quantity of agricultural land less than forty acres remains, such fractional portion of agricultural land may be entered by any party qualified by law, for homestead purposes.
Notes of Decisions
Wyo-Ben Inc. v. Haaland, 63 F.4th 857 (10th Cir. 2023).
· cites it 2× “” 30 U.S.C. § 35 . From April through August 1993, Wyo-Ben submitted various documents relevant to its application.”
United States Ex Rel. United States Borax Co. v. Ickes, 98 F.2d 271 (D.C. Cir. 1938).
· cites it 7× “§ 2331, 30 U.S.C.A. § 35 , which was enacted in 1872, provides that “no such: [placer] location shall include more than twenty acres for each individual claimant,”' and because under the provisions of Rev.”
Tosco Corp. v. Hodel, 611 F. Supp. 1130 (D. Colo. 1985).
· cites it 2× “By way of historical background it should be noted that association placer mining locations authorized by law ( 30 U.S.C. §§ 35 and 36) permit a group of persons to associate and obtain possessory title to one location of not more than 160 acres.”
McCall v. Andrus, 628 F.2d 1185 (9th Cir. 1980).
“30 U.S.C. §§ 35 and 36 restrict the maximum size of a placer mining claim to twenty acres per individual, up to 160 acres for an association *1188 claim.”
Pete Lien & Sons, Inc. v. Zellmer, 2015 SD 30 (S.D. 2015).
· cites it 6× “30 U.S.C. § 35 (emphasis added). This indicates that the federal scheme does not envision a mining system where separate provisions will always apply to either placer claims or vein and lode claims but not both.”
Baker v. United States, 613 F.2d 224 (9th Cir. 1980).
“See 30 U.S.C. §§ 35 , 36 (limit on the size of placer claims); 30 U.”
Earthworks v. DOI, 105 F.4th 449 (D.C. Cir. 2024).
· cites it 2× “” 30 U.S.C. § 35 . Less than a decade after the enactment of the Mining Law, the Supreme Court held Section 35 imposes no limit on the number of 20-acre placer claims a miner may acquire.”
State Ex Rel. Andrus v. Click, 554 P.2d 969 (Idaho 1976).
“30 U. S.C. § 35. In addition, the locator is granted the right to remove surface vegetation and to cut timber as may be necessary for mining purposes as well as to appropriate needed water.”
Multiple Use, Inc. v. Morton, 353 F. Supp. 184 (D. Ariz. 1972).
· cites it 3× “Thus, if there had been no discovery up to the time of transfer of the claim to the contestee, contestee (as an individual) could hold only 20 acres within a single claim under 30 U.S.C. § 35 . Affirming the Hearing Examiner’s decision, it then concluded that none of the land…”
United States v. Lex, 300 F. Supp. 2d 951 (E.D. Cal. 2003).
“§ 29 ; 30 U.S.C. § 35 (placer claims subject to same requirements for entry and patents as vein and lode claims).”
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.