Legal Opinion
Kunkes v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims
Decided October 31, 1994No. 93-776LPublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
BRUGGINK, Judge.
This is a claim for a taking under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. The action, brought pursuant to the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491 (1988), is before the court on the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment. After considering the written and oral arguments, the court concludes that the defendant’s motion should be granted and the plaintiffs’ motion should be denied.
BACKGROUND1
Under the Mining Act of 1872, 30 U.S.C. § 28-28(e) (1988) (“Mining Act”), mineral claims can be made on federal lands. The claims do not have to be patented to be valid, but they must…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation v. RA Gray & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
- United States v. LockeSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Texaco, Inc. v. ShortSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Forbes v. GraceySupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Whitney Benefits, Inc. And Peter Kiewit Sons' Co. v. The United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1991
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Charles R. Kunkes and Marguerite v. Kunkes v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1996
- Freeman v. United States Department of the InteriorDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2014
- Silver Buckle Mines, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2017
- Hall v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2008