Search for: "Miner v. Miner" Results 281 - 300 of 2,177
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
28 Sep 2023, 4:15 am by Charles Sartain
Then you have the estate misconception doctrine recognizing that in that era mineral owners erroneously believed that they only retained a 1/8th interest in their mineral estate after leasing for a 1/8th royalty, citing Van Dyke v. [read post]
4 Jun 2010, 9:12 am by Brian Baxter
A little less than six months after Asarco emerged from bankruptcy, the copper miner is caught up in a fight to recoup $25 million in fees from its former lawyers. [read post]
12 Mar 2019, 9:25 pm by Patrick Bracher (ZA)
The question in Maledu and others v Itereleng Bakgatla Mineral Resources (Pty) Ltd and Another was whether the respondents as holders of the rights to mine for platinum on a farm were bound to use the provisions of section 54 of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act before getting a court order to eject the applicants with a right to occupy the land. [read post]
28 Jul 2014, 2:40 pm by Alexander Suarez
 The California Court of Appeal recently provided some guidance in San Diego Gas & Electric Company v. [read post]
11 Mar 2022, 1:39 pm
We have filed an amicus brief on behalf of the Texas Land & Mineral Owners Association where we argue that the statute the pipeline company relies upon in support of its purported power to condemn does not actually give the pipeline company the power to condemn because the pipeline company is shipping a refined product and not crude petroleum. [read post]
13 Dec 2018, 9:00 am
Seuss book, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on Thursday issued its opinion in Cowpasture River Preservation Association v. [read post]
15 Jun 2020, 9:00 am
Reversing the Fourth Circuit, the Supreme Court on Monday issued its opinion in United States Forest Service v. [read post]
19 Aug 2008, 4:28 pm
August 14, 2008) (Miner, Cabranes, CJJ, Berman, DJ)This case provides an important clarification of the procedure that the court set out earlier this year in United States v. [read post]