Snead v. City of Birmingham

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 lack of a VER determination from the BLM did not divest the court of jurisdiction, but precluded plaintiffs from “staffing] a claim for relief under the Fifth Amendment”
• noting that CFC should stay takings proceedings for a determination by the BLM of mining claim validity since the “determination of the validity of such claims is entrusted to the BLM”
• holding that an owner of unpatented lode mining claims who asserted the Government’s “closure of lands on which [his] unpatented mining claims were located constituted a taking” did not state a claim for relief because the BLM had not made a determination as to the validity those claims
• “To have a compensable interest in unpatented mining claims sufficient to bring a taking action in [the United States Court of Federal Claims], there must have been a determination as to the validity of those mining claims.”
• “To have a compensable interest in unpatented mining claims sufficient to bring a taking action in [the United States Court of Federal Claims], there must have been a determination as to the validity of those mining claims.”
• “Nevertheless, a stay of the proceedings in this case is warranted until the BLM has determined the validity of the plaintiffs’ mining claims, and the parties have complied with all of the administrative procedures related to that determination.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).