Legal Opinion
Bedroc Ltd. v. United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided December 30, 2002No. 01-17080PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
GRABER, Circuit Judge.
In this appeal, we must decide whether sand and gravel are “valuable minerals” within the meaning of the Pittman Underground Water Act (the Act or the Pittman Act), 43 U.S.C. §§ 351-359 (1935).1 The *1082now-repealed Act provided grants, or “patents,” of federal public lands to people who found underground sources of water in the deserts of Nevada. Under the terms of the Act, these patents reserved “all the coal and other valuable minerals” to the United States. Pittman Act § 8.
Plaintiff BedRoc Limited2 brought this action to quiet title in a parcel of land granted…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Robinson v. Shell Oil Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1997
- TRW Inc. v. AndrewsSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
- United States v. Calvin Wayne BucklandCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2002
- Watt v. Western Nuclear, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Northern Pacific Railway Company v. SoderbergSupreme Court of the United States · 1902
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Laura Luis Hernandez v. John Ashcroft, Attorney GeneralCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
- United States v. James Cabaccang, United States of America v. Richard T. Cabaccang, United States of America v. Roy Toves CabaccangCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
- Perez-Olano v. GonzalezDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2008
- Bedroc Limited v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2002
- Bedroc Ltd. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2004
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.