30 U.S.C. § 38
Evidence of possession and work to establish right to patent
Where such person or association, they and their grantors, have held and worked their claims for a period equal to the time prescribed by the statute of limitations for mining claims of the State or Territory where the same may be situated, evidence of such possession and working of the claims for such period shall be sufficient to establish a right to a patent thereto under sections 21, 22 to 24, 26 to 28, 29, 30, 33 to 48, 50 to 52, 71 to 76 of this title and section 661 of title 43, in the absence of any adverse claim; but nothing in such sections shall be deemed to impair any lien which may have attached in any way whatever to any mining claim or property thereto attached prior to the issuance of a patent.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19
cases, 1941–1999 · leading case: Hiram B. Webb v. Manuel Lujan
Hiram B. Webb v. Manuel Lujan (1992)
“Webb appealed to the IBLA, contending that the BLM erroneously failed to consider the provisions of 30 U.S.C. § 38 . 3 Webb asserted placer rights pursuant to that provision and argued that the placer claims had never been contested by the BLM.”
United States v. Richard P. Haskins (1974)
“Can the defendant pursue his application for patent of the Haskins’ Placer Mining Claim pursuant to Title 30 U.S.C. § 38 where his lode claims under which he had previously worked the property have been declared invalid for lack of discovery ? “2.”
Hoefler v. Babbitt (1996)
“laim is the same claim as the Navajoe placer mining claim which was located when the land was open to mineral entry; (2) the filing by Barnes on August 13, 1956 of a copy of Greig’s 1934 Amended Notice of Location of the Wilson placer mining claim under the MCRRA validated the…”
United States of America, and United States District Court for the Central District of California v. Curtis Howe Springe (1974)
“§ 38 : “Where such person or association, they and their grantors, have held and worked their claims for a period equal to the time prescribed by the statute of limitations for mining claims of the State or Territory where the same may be situated, evidence of such possession…”
Alfred Coleman and Edward J. McClennan v. United States (1966)
“1 (pertaining to proving title under 30 U.S.C. § 38 ): “When an applicant desires to make his proof of possessory right in accordance with this provision of law he * * * will be required to furnish * * * any additional facts within the claimant’s knowledge having a direct…”
United States v. 237,500 Acres of Land, more or less, in the counties of Inyo & Kern, State of California (1964)
“And the evidence is unconvincing that there was such possession of, and work on, that claim to bring it within the provisions of 30 U.S.C. § 38 . While an Amended Notice of Location can be made, and the Statutes are to be liberally construed in respect to posting, recording, and…”
Bowen v. Sil-Flo Corporation (1969)
“By upholding the judgment of the trial court in this regard, we find it unnecessary to determine (1) whether Sil-Flo has a vested possessory right to its two claims under the doctrine of adverse pos *277 session, see 30 U.S.C.A. § 38 , A.R.S. § 12-525, and Eagle-Picher Mining &…”
Multiple Use, Inc. v. Morton (1972)
“During this latter period there were apparently some eight to ten dredging operations along the creek, including one in the area covered by the claim in issue.”
United States v. Consolidated Mines & Smelting Co. (1971)
“The only authority for adversely possessing mining claims is 30 U.S.C. § 38 , which provides in relevant part that: “Where such person or association, they and their grantors, have held and worked their claims for a period equal to the time prescribed by the statute of…”
State v. Tracy (1953)
“30 U.S.C.A. § 38 , Sec. 2332, U.S.R.S. provides that, in the absence of any adverse claim, where parties “ * * * have held and worked their claims for a period equal to the time prescribed by the statute of limitations for mining claims of the State or Territory where the same…”
Birchfield v. Thiercof (1967)
“This being federal public domain, we are concerned with satisfying federal law: “Where such person or association, they and their grantors, have held and worked their claims for a period equal to the time prescribed by the statute of limitations for mining claims of the State or…”
Edwards v. Kleppe (1978)
“§ 38 (granting patent rights based on adverse possession of property on which a valuable mineral discovery had been made), and had waived any rights he otherwise might have under that section. . The greater and more impressive part of their testimony dealt with removal of…”
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.