43 U.S.C. § 1166
Transferred
[transferred]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 27
cases, 1916–2019 · leading case: State v. Alaska Land Title Ass'n, 667 P.2d 714 (Alaska 1983).
State v. Alaska Land Title Ass'n, 667 P.2d 714 (Alaska 1983). “A declaration was sought that these patents were conclusive as against the State and that the patents could not be vacated or annulled because of the six year statute of limitations set forth in 43 U.S.C. § 1166 . The Peases cross-claimed against the State, alleging that the…”
Voisin v. United States, 80 Fed. Cl. 164 (Fed. Cl. 2008). “To support their argument, plaintiffs rely on 43 U.S.C. § 1166 (2000) and its supporting caselaw.”
United States v. Eaton Shale Co., 433 F. Supp. 1256 (D. Colo. 1977). “On that date, the six year statute of limitation provided by 43 U.S.C. § 1166 commenced running. The patent was issued pursuant to statutory jurisdiction, and within the power and authority of the Director of the BLM.”
Leisnoi, Inc. v. United States, 267 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 2001). “In both Leisnoi I and the present appeal, the United States has taken the firm position that its conveyance of land to Leisnoi has been incontestable since 1992, when the six-year statute of limitations period elapsed on any possible suit to recover the land.”
Keener v. State, 889 P.2d 1063 (Alaska 1995). “19 (quoting 43 U.S.C. § 1166 (1986)). In Alaska Land Title Ass’n , we held that the statute of limitations did not apply because the land was taken subject to a previously existing right of way; therefore, no suit to vacate or annul the patent was necessary.”
Gulf Oil Corp. v. State Mineral Bd., 317 So. 2d 576 (La. 1975). “" 43 U.S.C. § 1166 . A six year prescriptive period is most unusual in Louisiana and cannot be traced to any other source.”
Atl. City Elec. Co. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 312 F.2d 236 (2d Cir. 1962). “1093 (1891), 43 U.S.C. § 1166 . In Holmberg v. Armbrecht, 327 U.”
Wollan v. United States Dep't of the Interior, Bureau of Land Mgmt., 997 F. Supp. 1397 (D. Colo. 1998). “Federal Statute of Limitations (Disputed Areas 1 and 2). Defendants’ initial argument is that Wollan’s claim to Disputed Areas 1 and 2 is time barred.”
Grossman v. Young, 72 F. Supp. 375 (S.D.N.Y. 1947). “1093 , 43 U.S.C.A. § 1166 note, relating to land patents, which reads: “That suits by the United States to vacate and annul any patent heretofore issued shall only be brought within five years from the passage of this act, and suits to vacate and annxil patents hereafter issued…”
Putnam v. Ickes, 78 F.2d 223 (D.C. Cir. 1935). “1099 (see 43 USCA § 1166 and note), provides as follows: “That suits by the United States to vacate and annul any patent heretofore issued shall only be brought within five years from the passage of this act, and suits to vacate and annul patents hereafter issued shall only be…”
Izaak Walton League of Am. v. St. Clair, 55 F.R.D. 139 (D. Minnesota 1972). “Clair opposes the motion to amend on the grounds that (1) the State Commissioner has no standing and is not a proper party to question the defendants’ titles on any legal theory; (2) the State’s claim is untimely raised based upon the Federal statute of limitations, 43 U.S.C. §…”
United States v. Amalgamated Sugar Co., 48 F.2d 156 (10th Cir. 1931). “Code, title 43, § 1166 [43 USCA § 1166]). That Act provides that suits by the United States to vacate and annul any patent shall only be brought within six years after the date of issuance of such patent.”
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.