No deposit of common varieties of sand, stone, gravel, pumice, pumicite, or cinders and no deposit of petrified wood shall be deemed a valuable mineral deposit within the meaning of the mining laws of the United States so as to give effective validity to any mining claim hereafter located under such mining laws: Provided, however, That nothing herein shall affect the validity of any mining location based upon discovery of some other mineral occurring in or in association with such a deposit. “Common varieties” as used in this subchapter and sections 601 and 603 of this title does not include deposits of such materials which are valuable because the deposit has some property giving it distinct and special value and does not include so-called “block pumice” which occurs in nature in pieces having one dimension of two inches or more. “Petrified wood” as used in this subchapter and sections 601 and 603 of this title means agatized, opalized, petrified, or silicified wood, or any material formed by the replacement of wood by silica or other matter.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
66
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1965–2022 · leading case:
United States v. Locke, 471 U.S. 84 (1985).
United States v. Locke, 471 U.S. 84 (1985).
· cites it 4× “In this case, however, relocation of appellees' claims, which were initially located by appellees' predecessors in 1952 and 1954, was prohibited by the Common Varieties Act of 1955, 30 U. S. C. § 611 ; that Act prospectively barred location of the sort of minerals yielded by…”
Watt v. W. Nuclear, Inc., 462 U.S. 36 (1983).
· cites it 6× “It is also highly pertinent that federal administrative and judicial decisions over the past half-century have consistently recognized that gravel deposits could be located under the general mining laws until common varieties of gravel were prospectively removed from the purview…”
Andrus v. Charlestone Stone Prods. Co., 436 U.S. 604 (1978).
· cites it 4× “368 , 30 U. S. C. § 611 . 3 At the administrative hearing *607 on the Secretary’s complaint, the principal issue was whether the sand and gravel deposits were “valuable” prior to the effective date of the 1955 legislation, in which case the claims would be valid.”
Copar Pumice Co., Inc. v. Tidwell, 603 F.3d 780 (10th Cir. 2010).
· cites it 5× “30 U.S.C. § 611 (emphasis added). Disposal of these “common varieties” was now “permissible only under the Materials Act of 1947.”
United States v. Coleman, 390 U.S. 599 (1968).
· cites it 6× “As to the alternative “chiefly valuable for building stone” claim, the Secretary held that respondent Coleman’s quartzite deposits were a “common variet[y]” of stone within the meaning of 30 U. S. C. § 611 , 3 and thus they could not serve as the basis for a valid mining claim…”
Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co. v. Anderson, 629 P.2d 512 (Alaska 1981).
· cites it 8× “'" [4] In addition to the foregoing, since the only claimed use for the slate found in Anderson's claim is as building stone, it also comes under the Common Varieties Act, 30 U.S.C.A. § 611 (West 1971). [5] This act provides that: No deposit of common varieties of sand, stone,…”
Tanner Companies v. Arizona State Land Dep't, 688 P.2d 1075 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984).
· cites it 4× “After July 23, 1955, the effective date of the act, these commonly occurring materials could not be the object of location and removal under the general mining laws, but would be disposed of under the Materials Act.”
Hansen Bros. Enter., Inc. v. Bd. of Supervisors, 907 P.2d 1324 (Cal. 1996).
· cites it 2× “`Common varieties' as used in this Act does not include deposits of such materials which are valuable because the deposit has some property giving it distinct and special value.”
Reoforce, Inc. v. United States, 853 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
“30 U.S.C. § 611 . Whether a mineral is valuable is determined by applying a “prudentman test.”
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.