United States v. Stearns Co.
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky
595 F. Supp. 808 (1984)
- Written by Miller Jozwiak, JD
Facts
The Stearns Company (plaintiff) conveyed a large tract of land to the United States (defendant) to be added to a national forest. Stearns was initially not interested in selling the land but decided to do so after the Great Depression hurt its coal operations. The terms of the deed did not expressly address the subject of strip mining (although it did expressly exclude from its terms hydraulic mining). The deed, however, reserved certain mineral rights to Stearns. At the time the parties entered the agreement, although there was some knowledge regarding strip mining, Stearns generally did not engage in the process. Indeed, the subject land was not suitable for the strip mining procedures available in the 1930s. Years later, Stearns submitted a federal application to strip-mine part of the land, and this application was denied as against the public interest. Another two decades after that, Stearns again sought to strip-mine part of the land. The Forest Service also denied this permit, concluding that Stearns did not have the right to do so under the original instrument conveying the land and that federal law prohibited the mining. Eventually, the parties sued one another. Stearns claimed that it had reserved the right to strip-mine the land in the original conveyance, and the United States claimed that Stearns did not have this right.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Siler, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 790,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 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.
