Beluga Mining Co. v. State, Department of Natural Resources

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that injunction delaying claim holder’s ability to receive permits was not a taking because the company had no right to mine; rather, claim (continued...
• holding that injunction delaying claim holder's ability to receive permits was not a taking because the company had no right to mine; rather, claim holder's property interest was in the underlying claims
• noting that company with claim “had no right to mine” but had to seek permission to do so
• noting that company with claim \had no right to mine\ but had to seek permission to do so
• explaining company “had property rights in its claims, but it had no right to mine; its mining ‘rights’ were prospective and contingent”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).