30 U.S.C. § 42

Patents for nonmineral lands: application, survey, notice, acreage limitation, payment

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 30 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Vein or lode and mill site owners eligible

Where nonmineral land not contiguous to the vein or lode is used or occupied by the proprietor of such vein or lode for mining or milling purposes, such nonadjacent surface ground may be embraced and included in an application for a patent for such vein or lode, and the same may be patented therewith, subject to the same preliminary requirements as to survey and notice as are applicable to veins or lodes; but no location made on and after May 10, 1872, of such nonadjacent land shall exceed five acres, and payment for the same must be made at the same rate as fixed by 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 for the superficies of the lode. The owner of a quartz mill or reduction works, not owning a mine in connection therewith, may also receive a patent for his mill site, as provided in this section.

(b) Placer claim owners eligible

Where nonmineral land is needed by the proprietor of a placer claim for mining, milling, processing, beneficiation, or other operations in connection with such claim, and is used or occupied by the proprietor for such purposes, such land may be included in an application for a patent for such claim, and may be patented therewith subject to the same requirements as to survey and notice as are applicable to placers. No location made of such nonmineral land shall exceed five acres and payment for the same shall be made at the rate applicable to placer claims which do not include a vein or lode.

(R.S. § 2337; Pub. L. 86–390, Mar. 18, 1960, 74 Stat. 7.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

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, referred to in subsec. (a), were in the original “this chapter”, meaning chapter 6 of title 32 of the Revised Statutes, consisting of R.S. §§ 2318 to 2352.

Codification

R.S. § 2337 derived from act May 10, 1872, ch. 152, § 15, 17 Stat. 96.

Amendments

1960—Pub. L. 86–390 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and added subsec. (b).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 21 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1964–2024 · leading case: United States v. Ray Shumway Molly Shumway, 199 F.3d 1093 (9th Cir. 1999).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

United States v. Ray Shumway Molly Shumway, 199 F.3d 1093 (9th Cir. 1999). · cites it 2× “See 30 U.S.C. § 42 (a). . BLM Manual, release 3-270, Millsite Claim Patent Applications § 3864.”

Earthworks v. DOI, 105 F.4th 449 (D.C. Cir. 2024). · cites it 8× “30 U.S.C. § 42 (a); see also § 42(b) (providing similarly for placer mining claims).”

Mineral Policy Ctr. v. Norton, 292 F. Supp. 2d 30 (D.D.C. 2003). · cites it 2× “§ 1732 (b); and (2) the right to locate up to five acres of nonmineral land for mill site 22 use in association with each valid mining claim, 30 U.S.C. § 42 . The latter two primary rights (possession and patent) and both subordinate rights (ingress/egress and mill site use) are…”

Chevron Mining Inc. v. United States, 863 F.3d 1261 (10th Cir. 2017). “See 30 U.S.C. § 42 . Given the legal background, this case requires us to harmonize liability provisions under CERCLA with the rights created by the General Mining Act of 1872 to determine whether the United States is a PRP and therefore required to equitably contribute toward…”

Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Usfws, 33 F.4th 1202 (9th Cir. 2022). “” 30 U.S.C. § 42 (a). That is, land under a mill site need not contain valuable minerals.”

Earthworks v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior, 279 F.R.D. 180 (D.D.C. 2012). · cites it 2× “30 U.S.C. § 42 (a). According to plaintiffs, a section of the 2003 regulations provided a claimant with the right to locate and claim “as many millsite claims and acres as the claimants needed for a proposed mining operation, regardless of the number of associated mining claims…”

Freese, 221 Ct. Cl. 963 (Ct. Cl. 1979). “The location and patenting of nonmineral lands for millsites used or occupied for mining or milling purposes in connection with an associated mining lode claim is authorized by 30 U.S.C. § 42 (1976). The Secretary of the Interior is charged with seeing that valid claims are…”

James Collord Marjorie Collord v. United States Dep't of the Interior Bruce Babbitt Interior Bd. of Land Appeals, 154 F.3d 933 (9th Cir. 1998). “30 U.S.C. § 42 (a). A mining claim confers the right to exclusive possession of the claim, including the right to extract all minerals from the claim without paying royalties to the United States.”

J. Bryant Kasey & Maryann Kasey v. Molybdenum Corp. of Am., a Corp., 336 F.2d 560 (9th Cir. 1964). “30 U.S.C. § 42 . 5 . E.g., 30 U.S.C. §§ 524 , 525; cf.”

Swanson v. Babbitt, 3 F.3d 1348 (9th Cir. 1993). · cites it 2× “” 30 U.S.C. § 42 (a). A mill site is a tract of land, not to exceed five acres, on which can be placed processing facilities and other structures used to support the extraction of minerals from the claim.”

United States v. Billy Joe Bagwell Cynthia Bagwell, 961 F.2d 1450 (9th Cir. 1992). “for mining or milling purposes_” 30 U.S.C. § 42 (a) (1988). Like all mining claims, the use or occupancy of a mill site must be in good faith.”

Sims v. Ellis, 972 F. Supp. 2d 1196 (D. Idaho 2013). “” 30 U.S.C. § 42 (a). A “mill site is a tract of land, not to exceed five acres, on which can be placed processing facilities and other structures used to support the extraction of minerals from the claim.”

Show all 21 citing cases →

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.