MINING CLAIMS-Con.
COMMON VARIETIES OF MIN-
stone being mined, crushed, sold, and used for roofing rock, the de- posits are common varie- ties of stone and are not subject to location under the mining laws after July 23, 1955, where it is shown that similar vol- canic stone is of wide- spread occurrence and that the claimants obtain the same price in the market for the stone as their competitors who produce and sell similar naturally colored volcanic stone. It is not enough to remove the stone in issue from the common varie- ties category merely to show that it sells for a somewhat higher price than other commonly occurring rocks used for the same purpose that are less attractively colored, such as crushed granite, limestone and pea gravel.
1. A mining claimant is the pro- ponent of the validity of his claim under the Ad- ministrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq. (1970), and has the burden of overcoming by a preponderance of evi- dence the Government's prima facie case of failure to comply with the loca- tion requirements of the mining law and of lack of discovery of a valuable mineral deposit..........
2. Despite the fact that the Government's witnesses
were not present on each
CONTESTS-Con.
claim in contest, their testimony taken with the testimony of the princi- pal contestee, called as part of the Government's case in chief, may be suffi- cient to establish a prima facie case that the mining claims are invalid.__.
3. When a mining claimant has failed to answer a com- plaint in a mining con- test, the allegations are deemed admitted under 43 CFR 4.450-7 and the Manager will decide the case without a hearing_ _ _ 4. When, pursuant to 43 CFR
4.450-7, a Manager has decided a mining contest against a defaulting con- testee and no timely ap- peal was taken there- from, a late appeal will be dismissed under 43 CFR 4.411(b) ----. 5. A defaulting contestee cannot rely on an answer filed by a co-claimant when such answer never purported to be on the defaulting contestee's behalf_______ 6. A mining claimant is not denied due process mere- ly because of prehearing publicity where he fails to show that there was any unfairness in the contest proceeding itself. 7. The failure of the Govern- ment to contest other un- patented mining claims in a given area cannot support a charge of dis- crimination when a min- ing claimant fails to show that such action was arbitrary or prejudiced
his rights in any way--- 325
8. It is not necessary for the Government to prepare an environmental impact statement before issuing a patent to a mining claim, as the patenting of a mining claim is not a "major Federal action" within the ambit of sec- tion 102 of the National Environmental Policy
Act, 42 U.S.C. § 4332 (1970)--
9. Where a prima facie case rests upon the establishment of a negative fact, but the other party has peculiar knowledge or control of the evidence as to such matter, the burden rests upon him to produce such evidence of sufficient weight and credibility, and failing, the negative will be presumed to have been established. This principle applies in a mining claim contest to the extent that where the Government has made a prima facie case of non- marketability, and the contestee only testifies that he made sales but fails to buttress that testimony with specific data as to the sales or provide corroborating evidence thereof, he will be deemed to have failed in his burden of proof___
DETERMINATION OF VALIDITY
1. Where mining claims are
located after enactment of the Act of July 23, 1955 for deposits of na- turally colored volcanic stone having various colors, the stone being mined, crushed, sold, and
MINING CLAIMS-Con.
DETERMINATION OF ITY-Con.
used for roofing rock, the
deposits varieties of stone, and are not subject to loca- tion under the mining laws after July 23, 1955, where it is shown that similar volcanic stone is of widespread occurrence and that the claimants obtain the same price in the market for the stone as their competitors who produce and sell similar naturally colored volcanic stone. It is not enough to remove the stone in issue from the common vari- eties category merely to show that it sells for a somewhat higher price than other commonly oc- curring rocks used for the same purpose that are less attractively colored, such as crushed granite, lime- stone and pea gravel... Department of the Interior has been granted plenary power in the administration of the pub- lic lands, and it has authority, after proper notice and upon adequate hearing, to determine the validity of an unpatented mining claim.......
3. Where a mineral claimant has
located a group of claims,
MINING CLAIMS-Con.
DISCOVERY-Con.
to establish an absence of a discovery as to the whole claim as the locator may still have a valuable mineral deposit on that portion of the claim not challenged by the Gov-
1. A mining claimant is the proponent of the validity of his claim under the Administrative Proce-
dure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq. (1970), and has the burden of over- coming by a preponder- ance of evidence the Government's prima facie case of failure to comply with the location re- quirements of the mining law and of lack of dis- covery of a valuable mineral deposit---- 2. Where a mining claimant's testimony as to location and discovery is super- ficial and implausible, it is reasonable for the Administrative Law Judge to conclude from the evidence and the testimony of other wit- nesses that none of the claims was located ac-
cording to the require- ments of the mining laws and that no discovery was made thereon _ _ _ _ _
discovery exists within
the meaning of the min- ing laws....
4. The Board of Land Appeals will set aside its former decision and remand a contest proceeding for further hearing where on reconsideration of such decision it finds addi- tional evidence is neces- sary for a final determina- tion...
5. Where minerals have been found and the evidence is of such a character that a person of ordinary pru- dence would not be justi- fied in the further ex- penditure of his labor and means, with a reasonable prospect of success in developing a valuable mine, a discovery does not exist within the mean- ing of the mining laws....
6. To verify whether a dis- covery of a valuable mineral deposit has been made, a government min- eral engineer need not explore or sample beyond those areas which have been exposed by the claimant; he is not re- quired to do the dis- covery work for the claimant..
7. Testimony by a government mineral engineer that he examined the mining claims and the workings thereon and sample the area recommended by the claimant but found no evidence of a valuable mineral deposit which would have in the past or
2. The fact that alumina, the raw material from which aluminum is produced, is present in the area of a group of mining claims does not satisfy the mar- ketability test of dis- covery when there is no known process by which aluminum may be ex- tracted from the par- ticular alumina-bearing mineral compounds on a profitable basis_ _ _ _.
3. In applying the prudent-man test a critical factor to be considered, especially in the case of widespread nonmetallic mineral, is whether the claimed ma- terial is marketable. To establish the market- ability of a widespread
nonmetallic mineral a
MINING CLAIMS-Con.
DISCOVERY-Con.
Marketability-Con.
contestee must show that by reason of accessibility, bona fides in develop- ment, proximity to mar- ket, existence of present demand, and other factors, the deposit is of such value that it can be mined, removed and dis- posed of at a profit - - - - 4. Where a prima facie case rests upon the establishment of a negative fact, but the other party has peculiar knowledge or control of the evidence as to such matter, the burden rests upon him to produce such evidence of sufficient
weight and credibility, and failing, the negative will be presumed to have been established. This principle applies in a min- ing claim contest to the extent that where the Government has made a prima facie case of non- marketability, and the contestee only testifies that he made sales but fails to buttress that tes- timony with specific data as to the sales or provide corroborating evidence thereof, he will be deemed to have failed in his bur- den of proof----- 5. To satisfy the requirements for discovery on a placer mining claim located for common varieties of sand and gravel before July 23, 1955, it must be shown that the materials within the limits of the claim, by reason of accessibility, bona fides in develop- ment, proximity to mar-
« iepriekšējāTurpināt » |