Neilson v. Champagne Mining & Milling Co.
Citations
- 119 F. 123
- 55 C.C.A. 576
- 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 4649
Syllabus
<p>1. Mining Claims—Effect of Entry—Conclusiveness as to Third Parties.</p> <p>A stranger cannot acquire any rights in a mining claim after the application of another for a patent therefor has been allowed, and he has paid for and received a certificate of entry, which vests in him the equitable title as against third parties.</p> <p>2, Same—Effect of Protest.</p> <p>A protest filed against the issuance of a patent to a mining claim after . the application for the patent has been allowed, the purchase money paid, and a certificate of entry issued does not give the protestant any basis for a suit in equity to annul the patent issued after the protest has been dismissed, or to charge the patentee as a trustee of the legal title.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- explaining that “[lJitigants usually cannot prohibit a 30(b)(6) deposition by arguing in advance that each and every question would trigger the disclosure of attorney-client and work production information”
- “Counsel may protect against the disclosure of work product or privileged information in 30(b)(6) depositions by interposing appropriate objections and giving instructions on a question-by-question basis”
- “[T]he argument that a lawyer would be involved in the preparation process is simply a truism which, if sufficient to preclude 30(b)(6) depositions, would eliminate that discovery tool.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Caldwell
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.