Stearns Co., Ltd. v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims
53 Fed. Cl. 446 (2002)

- Written by Miller Jozwiak, JD
Facts
The Stearns Coal and Lumber Company (Stearns) (plaintiff) transferred the surface rights in property to the United States (defendant). This transfer involved tens of thousands of acres of land for national forest purposes. Stearns, however, reserved mining rights subject to federal rules and regulations. Under Kentucky law, this gave Stearns a dominant estate in the mineral rights, which came with an implied easement to use the subservient land estate to access the minerals. In the decades following the transfer, Stearns engaged in mining operations consistent with the federal rules and regulations. Congress then passed the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA), which regulated surface mining operations (this included not only strip mining but also underground mining that had incidental surface operations). Following passage of the SMCRA, Stearns sought to have a lessee engage in underground mining operations that would require going across the surface of the now-United States land. The government later determined that because Stearns sought the permits for the operation after passage of the SMCRA, Stearns (and its lessee) did not have valid existing rights that allowed for mining operations under the SMCRA. However, the government could, in its sole discretion, allow Stearns to continue mining. Stearns sued in Federal Claims Court, claiming that this constituted a taking of property that required compensation.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Smith, 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. 46,500 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.