Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
  • G
  • Geomet Exploration, Ltd. v. Lucky McUranium …Geomet Exploration, Ltd. v. Lucky McUranium Corp.
From our private database of 16,800+ case briefs...

Geomet Exploration, Ltd. v. Lucky McUranium Corp.

Supreme Court of Arizona
601 P.2d 1339 (1980)


The Lucky McUranium Corporation (Lucky) (plaintiff) found geologic-formation anomalies that indicated the presence of uranium deposits on federal land located in Arizona. Although Lucky did not physically occupy the land, Lucky posted 200 claims that encompassed 4,000 acres of the land, and recorded notices of the claims. Lucky also drilled a hole on each claim. Geomet Exploration, Ltd. (Geomet) (defendant) peaceably entered and began to drill on some of Lucky’s claims. Although Geomet was aware of Lucky’s claims prior to entering the land, Geomet considered the claims to be invalid because Lucky had not discovered minerals on the claims and was not in actual occupancy of the land. Lucky filed a possessory action against Geomet, seeking damages, exclusive possession, and a permanent injunction against trespass. The trial court found that Lucky was entitled to exclusive possession and a permanent injunction, and that Geomet had entered the land in bad faith because Geomet had been aware of Lucky’s claims prior to entry. Geomet appealed, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court of Arizona granted Geomet’s petition for review to decide whether to discard the actual-occupancy requirement of the pedis possessio doctrine in favor of constructive possession. Lucky argued that the actual-occupancy requirement should be relaxed because (1) the cost of actually occupying and drilling on each claim prior to discovery was high, (2) the 4,000 acres claimed by Lucky were reasonable in size and similar in geologic formation, and (3) Lucky’s drilling activities on some of the claims were sufficient to protect all contiguous claims. Lucky also claimed that Geomet could not invoke the pedis possessio doctrine because of Geomet’s bad faith.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Hays, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 449,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 449,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 16,800 briefs, keyed to 224 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Questions & Answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial