Legal Opinion
Vogel v. Warsing
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided June 27, 1906No. 1,216PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtGilbert, Circuit Judge
It is contended that the court erred in denying the injunction pendente lite, for the reason that it appeared from the pleadings and the affidavits of the appellants that the Happy Four claim was located on January 1, 1901, on vacant unappropriated public land, and that the locations under which defendants claim the right to mine were made subsequent to that date, excepting that of the Panorama claim, and that, as to that claim, the location of'the original locators was void for two reasons: First, that no affidavit of discovery of gold therein is shown by the record; and, second, that the…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Hammer v. Garfield Mining & Milling Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1889
- North Noonday Mining Co. v. Orient Mining Co.United States Circuit Court · 1880
- Cheesman v. ShreeveU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Colorado · 1889
- Shea v. NilimaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1904
- McEvoy v. HymanU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Colorado · 1885
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Steele v. PrebleOregon Supreme Court · 1938
- Butte & Superior Copper Co. v. Clark-Montana Realty Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1918
- Brown v. MurphyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1939
- In re Arkansas Railroad RatesU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Arkansas · 1909
- Bowles v. QuonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1946
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.