Marketability Test

19 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Coleman v. United States
  363 F.2d 190· 9th Cir.· 1966-06-21 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the Department of the Interior misapplied 30 U.S.C. § 611 by imposing an absolute marketability test for building stone claims and that the prudent person test for discovery should apply.
• Ford M. Converse v. Udall
  399 F.2d 616· 9th Cir.· 1968-08-19 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the Secretary of the Interior correctly applied the 'prudent man' test, complemented by the 'marketability test,' to determine the validity of unpatented mining claims located before July 23, 1955.
• Barrows v. Hickel
  447 F.2d 80· 9th Cir.· 1971-08-17 ·cited 30×
  The court held that a prudent person would have foreseen the increased market demand for construction materials due to the creation of Big Bear Lake.
• Melton E. Baker v. United States
  613 F.2d 224· 9th Cir.· 1980-02-11 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA) exceeded its authority by adopting a "too much" or excess reserve test for mining claims, as this test lacks statutory basis and is unworkable.
• Melluzzo v. Rogers C. B. Morton
  534 F.2d 860· 9th Cir.· 1976-04-15 ·cited 27×
  The court held that while the deposits were 'common varieties,' the Secretary's determination of lack of marketability was not sufficiently supported by evidence regarding profit potential and demand in 1955, requiring remand.
• Roberts v. Rogers C. B. Morton
  549 F.2d 158· 10th Cir.· 1976-11-19 ·cited 26×
  The court held that mining claims can be declared void if claimants fail to properly locate them according to federal and state laws, and if they cannot demonstrate the discovery of a valuable mineral deposit that is marketable at a profit.
• Multiple USE, Inc. v. Rogers C. B. Morton
  504 F.2d 448· 9th Cir.· 1974-10-02 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the administrative record contained substantial evidence to support the Secretary's finding of no valuable mineral deposit and that the marketability test was properly applied as a complement to the prudent man test.
• Charlestone Stone Prods. Co., Inc. v. Andrus
  553 F.2d 1209· 9th Cir.· 1977-05-12 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the Secretary's determination that only one of Charlestone's mining claims was valid was not supported by substantial evidence, and that water can be considered a mineral for the purpose of mining claims.
• Ideal Basic Indus., Inc. v. Rogers C. B. Morton
  542 F.2d 1364· 9th Cir.· 1976-09-28 ·cited 12×
  The Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA) had the authority to reconsider a prior administrative decision, and the applicant had not exhausted administrative remedies by failing to participate in further fact-finding proceedings.
• The Dredge Corp. v. Kemp Conn
  733 F.2d 704· 9th Cir.· 1984-05-22 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Interior Board of Land Appeals' decision that Dredge did not have a valid placer mining claim was supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with law.
• Lara v. The Sec'y OF the Interior OF the United States
  820 F.2d 1535· 9th Cir.· 1987-07-08 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the ten-acre rule applies to individual placer claims and that substantial evidence supported the administrative decisions invalidating parts of Lara's mining claims.
• Charles v. Hallenbeck, Jr.
  590 F.2d 852· 10th Cir.· 1979-01-18 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the administrative findings of invalidity of the mining claims were supported by substantial evidence and were not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.
• R.E. Rodgers and Barbara Rodgers v. Watt
  726 F.2d 1376· 9th Cir.· 1984-02-28 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Administrative Law Judge and Interior Board of Land Appeals improperly applied the marketability and prudent-person tests, and the government failed to present a prima facie case of invalidity.
• Shell OIL Co. & D. A. Shale, Inc. v. Andrus
  591 F.2d 597· 10th Cir.· 1979-01-25 ·cited 4×
  The Department of the Interior cannot retroactively change its long-standing interpretation of mining laws regarding oil shale claims, as Congress affirmatively adopted this interpretation through its actions.
• Stegman v. Kleppe
  588 F.2d 671· 9th Cir.· 1978-10-26 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the administrative record contained substantial evidence to support the Interior Board of Land Appeals' decision that no valuable mineral deposit was discovered prior to July 23, 1955.
• Barton v. Rogers C. B. Morton
  498 F.2d 288· 9th Cir.· 1974-05-30 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the discovery of mineralized veins, which only suggest the possibility of valuable deposits, does not satisfy the statutory requirement of discovering a valuable mineral deposit for patentability.