Andrus v. Charlestone Stone Products Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that mining claimants must acquire water rights pursuant to state law
• holding that the complaint’s failure to specifically allege federal question jurisdiction did not matter because “the facts alleged in it are sufficient to establish such jurisdiction and the complaint appeared jurisdictionally correct when filed”
• finding jurisdiction under amended § 1331(a) where complaint was originally filed in 1973 and neither asserted § 1331(a) as basis of jurisdiction nor pleaded $10,000 in controversy
• noting in 1866, 1870, and 1872, Congress affirmed the “view that private water rights on federal lands were to be governed by state and local law and custom”
• “jurisdiction in this action to review a decision of the Secretary of the Interior is clearly conferred by 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a)”
• \jurisdiction in this action to review a decision of the Secretary of the Interior is clearly conferred by 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331(a)\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).