REOFORCE, INC. v. US , No. 15-5084 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on March 17, 2017.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ April 28, 2017 ERRATA ______________________ Appeal No. 2015-5084 REOFORCE, INC., THEODORE SIMONSON, RONALD STEHN, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee Decided: March 17, 2017 Precedential Opinion ______________________ Please make the following changes: On page 4, lines 4-13, delete: Once established, a mining claimant receives “a ‘patent,’ that is, an official document issued by the United States attesting that fee title to the land is in the private owner.” Kunkes v. United States, 78 F.3d 1549, 1551 (Fed. Cir. 1996). A patented mining claim is “a property right in the full sense.” Union Oil Co. v. Smith, 249 U.S. 337, 349 (1919). 2 REOFORCE, INC. v. US Until a patent issues, the mining claimant has an “unpatented” mining claim, a “unique form of property.” Best, 371 U.S. at 335–36. Replace the deleted language with this paragraph: The Mining Law allows the holder of a valid mining claim to apply for “a ‘patent,’ that is, an official document issued by the United States attesting that fee title to the land is in the private owner.” Kunkes v. United States, 78 F.3d 1549, 1551 (Fed. Cir. 1996). [insert footnote 1] Until a patent issues, however, the mining claimant has an “unpatented” mining claim, a “unique form of property.” Best, 371 U.S. at 335– 36; see also Union Oil Co. v. Smith, 249 U.S. 337, 349 (1919) (an unpatented mining claim is “a property right in the full sense”). Insert Footnote 1, as indicated above, to read: “Since 1994, Congress has imposed a moratorium on the processing of new patent applications. See Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 103-332, 108 Stat. 2499 (1994).” The following paragraph should start with the sentence currently at page 4, line 13: “An unpatented claim…”
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
