McMaster v. United States
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
731 F.3d 881 (2013)
- Written by Colette Routel, JD
Facts
In 1992, Ken McMaster (plaintiff) filed an application with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) (defendant) to obtain a patent to land known as the Oro Grande mining claim (Oro Grande), located within the Trinity Alps Wilderness (wilderness area). This mining claim was perfected under the General Mining Law of 1872 (GML), prior to the creation of the wilderness area, and was ultimately purchased by McMaster. In response to McMaster’s application, the BLM provided McMaster with a patent to the mineral estate but not for the surface estate. The BLM contended that the California Wilderness Act of 1984, which created the wilderness area and made the federal Wilderness Act of 1964 applicable to those lands, authorized the BLM to issue a patent only for the mineral rights. McMaster sued the BLM, seeking to compel the production of a patent to the surface estate, arguing that longstanding BLM practice required this. The district court dismissed McMaster’s lawsuit. McMaster appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Bybee, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 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.
