Oregon King Min. Co. v. Brown
Citations
- 119 F. 48
- 55 C.C.A. 626
- 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 4636
Syllabus
<p>.1. Mining Claims—Marking Location—Statutory Requirement.</p> <p>Rev. St. § 2324 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1426], which provides that in marking a mining claim “the location must be distinctly marked on the ground so that its boundaries can be readily traced,” does not require the boundary lines to be indicated by physical marks or monuments, nor define what kind of marks shall be made, nor on what part of the ground claimed; but any marking, whether by stakes, mounds, monuments, or written notices, whereby the boundaries can be readily traced, is sufficient:</p> <p>2. Same—Record of Location Notice—Oregon Statute.</p> <p>Under St. Or. Oct. 14, 1898, providing for the recording of notices of the discovery and location of mining claims, it is not essential to the validity of a location that the record should be a literal copy of the notice posted on the claim, but it is sufficient if it is a substantial copy.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- concluding that the named plaintiff’s claims were typical despite 5 the possibility that some of her claims were subject to a time-barred defense
- “For the purposes of class certification, it is sufficient that the alleged material omission was part of a common advertising scheme to which the entire class was exposed.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Ross
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.