Legal Opinion

Gray v. Coykendall

Nevada Supreme Court

Decided December 28, 1931No. 2930PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

By the Court,

Ducker, J. :

The two placer mining claims to which plaintiffs seek to quiet title by this action are designated in their second amended complaint as Coykendall No. 2 and Coykendall No. 3, and are particularly described therein.

The defendants, in their answer, deny the allegations of the complaint, and by way of cross-complaint set up their claim of title. Defendant’s claim of title, as alleged in the answer, is based upon valid locations of most of the ground covered by plaintiff’s claims, by the location on the 15th day of January, 1927, of the placer mining claims known…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Book v. Justice Min. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Nevada · 1893
  2. Flynn Group Mining Co. v. MurphyIdaho Supreme Court · 1910
  3. Gibson v. HjulNevada Supreme Court · 1910
  4. Tiggeman v. MrzlakMontana Supreme Court · 1909
  5. Thallman v. ThomasU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Colorado · 1900

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Lombardo Turquoise Milling & Mining Co., Inc. v. HemanesDistrict Court, D. Nevada · 1977
  2. Kenney v. GreerNevada Supreme Court · 1983
  3. Ferlic v. Lovelace Health Sys., LLCNew Mexico Supreme Court · 2026
  4. Masek v. OstlundWyoming Supreme Court · 1960
  5. Masek v. OstlundWyoming Supreme Court · 1960

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API