43 U.S.C. § 541

When patent or final certificate issued

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 43 CasesGoogle Scholar

Any homestead entryman under the Act of June seventeenth, nineteen hundred and two, known as the reclamation Act, including entrymen on ceded Indian lands, may, at any time after having complied with the provisions of law applicable to such lands as to residence reclamation, and cultivation, submit proof of such residence, reclamation, and cultivation, which proof, if found regular and satisfactory, shall entitle the entryman to a patent, and all purchasers of water-right certificates on reclamation projects shall be entitled to a final water-right certificate upon proof of the cultivation and reclamation of the land to which the certificate applies, to the extent required by the reclamation Act for homestead entrymen: Provided, That no such patent or final water-right certificate shall issue until after the payment of all sums due the United States on account of such land or water right at the time of the submission of proof entitling the homestead or desert-land entryman to such patent or the purchaser to such final water-right certificate.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 1971–2011 · leading case: Klamath Irrigation Dist. v. United States, 67 Fed. Cl. 504 (Fed. Cl. 2005).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Klamath Irrigation Dist. v. United States, 67 Fed. Cl. 504 (Fed. Cl. 2005). “265 (codified, as amended, at 43 U.S.C. § 541 ). Congress required that the individual’s land patent and water right certificate would “expressly reserve to the United States a prior lien” for the payment of sums due to the United States in connection with the reclamation…”

San Luis Unit Food Producers v. United States, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1210 (E.D. Cal. 2011). “265 (codified, as amended, at 43 U.S.C. § 541 ). Congress required that the individual’s land patent and water right certificate would “expressly reserve to the United States a prior lien” for the payment of sums due to the United States in connection with the reclamation…”

United States v. Tulare Lake Canal Co., 535 F.2d 1093 (9th Cir. 1976). “265 , 266, 43 U.S.C. §§ 541 , 542. . 37 Stat. 266 , 43 U.”

Yellen v. Hickel, 335 F. Supp. 200 (S.D. Cal. 1971). “265 , 43 U.S.C.A. § 541 as additional support to the contention that residence is no longer intended as a requirement for water rights under reclamation law.”

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.