Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Texas Attorney General Reports
1Opinion of the Court
Honorable BIeoom Qllee, Commlerloner Qeneral Land Office Austin, Texas Dear Sir: Opinion NO. o-6838 Re: Whether certain eubstanoes r-wed from gold aohool land are minerals and whether they oan be developed in +ocord+noe *th%t@e provl,s$oiso$ ~~tl~le~ 5388, et seq.; R: C.‘,& We refer to your letter of Septe@+er 20,~194Fr whioh reads as follorer “I am confronted~rith the~probblsmwhether a~?- taln aubetaneesremwed fm:s@t! Se&sol L8&td.origl- nally Bold with a mine-1 a+‘~gwzing @.~rrsf~loutloa prior to the eifeotlve date o$‘Ch@ptex?gi’JrAQ$S oi the 42nd Legislature,1931, Cre ‘MWralE’ w$th$s the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Sult v. A. Hochstetter Oil Co.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1908
- Nephi Plaster & Mfg. Co. v. Juab CountyUtah Supreme Court · 1907
- Carothers v. MillsCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1921
- Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. SoderbergCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1900
- State v. HedicanMontana Supreme Court · 1907