Moseley v. Hickel
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1Per curiam
After exhausting their administrative remedies, appellants sought review by the district court of a ruling that their mining claims and millsite claim were invalid. The district court denied their motions for summary judgment and granted the government’s motion for summary judgment as to each action. This court has jurisdiction under 28 U. S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
Appellant Moseley is an airplane pilot who worked his claim part-time. Appellant Minerals Trust Corporation purchased the rights of Fairchild, who had acquired it by quit-claim deed and had lived on it. Appellant Crawford, an employee…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Cameron v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1920
- Standard Oil Co. of California v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1940
- Henrikson v. UdallCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1965
3Cited by3 opinions
- Multiple Use, Inc. v. MortonDistrict Court, D. Arizona · 1972
- Arkla Exploration Co. v. WattDistrict Court, W.D. Arkansas · 1982
- Ernest E. Moseley v. Walter J. Hickel, Secretary of the Department of Interior, Minerals Trust Corporation v. Walter J. Hickel, Secretary of the Department of Interior, Jesse W. Crawford v. Walter J. Hickel, Secretary of the Department of InteriorCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1971