Citation network
Watt Vs. Western Nuclear, Inc.
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 06, 1983
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
Watt v. WesternSearch
-
Nuclear, Inc. - 462 U.S. 36 (1983) U.S. Supreme Court Watt v. WesternSearch
-
Nuclear, Inc., 462 U.S. 36 (1983) Watt v. WesternSearch
-
District Court affirmed the ruling that the mineral reservation in the SRHA encompasses gravel. Western Nuclear, Inc. v. AndrusSearch
-
by Western Nuclear did not constitute a mineral reserved to the United States under the SRHA. Western Nuclear, Inc. v. AndrusSearch
-
Northern Pacific R. Co. v. SoderbergSearch
-
Waugh v. ThompsonSearch
-
Board of County Comm'rs v. GoodSearch
-
White v. MillerSearch
-
understood to include only inorganic substances having a definite chemical composition, see, e.g., Ozark Chemical Co. v. JonesSearch
-
Lillington Stone Co. v. MaxwellSearch
-
United States v. AitkenSearch
-
serve only to exclude substances that are not minerals under any common definition of that word. Cf. United States v. TooleSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
type of mineral that Congress intended to reserve to the United States in lands patented under the SRHA. Cf. Andrus v. CharlestoneSearch
-
Congress intended the mineral reservation in the SRHA to encompass gravel. On the one hand, in Northern Pacific R. Co. v. SoderbergSearch
-
U.S. at 188 U. S. 536 (emphasis added), quoting Midland R. Co. v. CheckleySearch
-
a homestead entry made on land alleged to be chiefly valuable for the gravel and sand located thereon. Zimmerman v. BrunsonSearch
-
L.D. 310, overruled, Layman v. EllisSearch
-
which was never tested in the courts and was not mentioned in the Reports or debates on the SRHA. Cf. Helvering v. NewSearch
-
of the surface estate that Congress contemplated. As the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit noted in United States v. UnionSearch
-
Cf. United States v. IsbellSearch
-
Cf. Northern Pacific R. Co. v. SoderbergSearch
-
United States v. IsbellSearch
-
gravel is inorganic. Moreover, as the Department of the Interior explained in 1929 when it overruled Zimmerman v. BrunsonSearch
-
Layman v. EllisSearch
-
of facilitating the concurrent development of surface and subsurface resources. See, e.g., Mastro Plastics Corp. v. NLRBSearch
-
See Edwards v. KleppeSearch
-
Charlestone Stone Products Co. v. AndrusSearch
-
Melluzzo v. MortonSearch
-
Clear Gravel Enterprises, Inc. v. KeilSearch
-
Verrue v. UnitedSearch
-
Barrows v. HickelSearch
-
United States v. SchaubSearch
-
L.D. at 718-721, overruling Zimmerman v. BrunsonSearch
-
Cf. United States v. BarngroverSearch
-
had occasion to decide the appropriate treatment of gravel under the mining laws, the Court did note in United States v. ColemanSearch
-
is no indication that Congress intended the mineral reservation in the SRHA to be narrower in scope than the mining laws. v. FinallySearch
-
United States v. UnionSearch
-
Pacific R. Co., 353 U. S. 112 , 353 U. S. 116 (1957). See Andrus v. CharlestoneSearch
-
Caldwell v. UnitedSearch
-
that gravel does not constitute a mineral reserved to the United States under the Act. State ex rel. Highway Comm'n v. TrujilloSearch
-
See Skeen v. LynchSearch
-
Loney v. ScottSearch
-
Ore. 378, 385, 112 P. 172, 175 (1910). See also State ex rel. Atkinson v. EvansSearch
-
Pacific Coat Marble Co. v. NorthernSearch
-
Pacific R. Co., 25 L.D. 233, 245 (1897). See Bennett v. MollSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Watt v. WesternSearch
-
Western Nuclear, Inc. v. AndrusSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial