§Why CasetextPricing

PEOPLE v. RINEHART

Respondent’s Reply to Answer to Petition for Review

34 Cited authorities

  1. United States v. Salerno

    481 U.S. 739 (1987)   Cited 5,401 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "extensive safeguards" are necessary "to repel a facial challenge"

  2. Wyeth v. Levine

    555 U.S. 555 (2009)   Cited 1,432 times   101 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the FDA's drug labeling judgments pursuant to the FDCA did not obstacle preempt state law products liability claims

  3. Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency

    535 U.S. 302 (2002)   Cited 742 times   19 Legal Analyses
    Holding it “inappropriate to treat cases involving physical takings as controlling precedents for the evaluation of a claim that there has been a ‘regulatory taking,’ and vice versa”

  4. Pacific Gas Elec. v. Energy Resources Comm'n

    461 U.S. 190 (1983)   Cited 1,172 times
    Holding "that the promotion of nuclear power is not to be accomplished ‘at all costs’ "

  5. Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC

    544 U.S. 431 (2005)   Cited 549 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a preemption clause barring state laws "in addition to or different" from a federal Act does not interfere with an "equivalent" state provision

  6. United States v. Locke

    529 U.S. 89 (2000)   Cited 438 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the presumption does not apply in areas with a "history of significant federal presence"

  7. Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp.

    331 U.S. 218 (1947)   Cited 2,165 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the clear statement rule may be satisfied where "the Act of Congress ... touch[es] a field in which the federal interest is so dominant that the federal system will be assumed to preclude enforcement of state laws on the same subject."

  8. Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court

    57 Cal.2d 450 (Cal. 1962)   Cited 5,921 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Explaining the "rule requiring a court exercising inferior jurisdiction to follow the decisions of a court exercising a higher jurisdiction"

  9. Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Montana

    453 U.S. 609 (1981)   Cited 290 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a severance tax imposed on amount of coal mined was a "general revenue tax"

  10. Kleppe v. New Mexico

    426 U.S. 529 (1976)   Cited 270 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that courts should not decide important constitutional questions on less than an "`adequate and full-bodied record'"

  11. Section 22 - Lands open to purchase by citizens

    30 U.S.C. § 22   Cited 236 times

    Except as otherwise provided, all valuable mineral deposits in lands belonging to the United States, both surveyed and unsurveyed, shall be free and open to exploration and purchase, and the lands in which they are found to occupation and purchase, by citizens of the United States and those who have declared their intention to become such, under regulations prescribed by law, and according to the local customs or rules of miners in the several mining districts, so far as the same are applicable and

  12. Section 28 - Mining district regulations by miners: location, recordation, and amount of work; marking of location on ground; records; annual labor or improvements on claims pending issue of patent; co-owner's succession in interest upon delinquency in contributing proportion of expenditures; tunnel as lode expenditure

    30 U.S.C. § 28   Cited 137 times
    Allowing states to “make regulations not in conflict with the laws of the United States, ... subject to the following requirement: [t]he location must be distinctly marked on the ground so that its boundaries can be readily traced”

  13. Section 612 - Unpatented mining claims

    30 U.S.C. § 612   Cited 81 times
    Subjecting mining claims to certain restrictions

  14. Section 51 - Water users' vested and accrued rights; enumeration of uses; protection of interest; rights-of-way for canals and ditches; liability for injury or damage to settlers' possession

    30 U.S.C. § 51   Cited 23 times

    Whenever, by priority of possession, rights to the use of water for mining, agricultural, manufacturing, or other purposes have vested and accrued, and the same are recognized and acknowledged by the local customs, laws, and the decisions of courts, the possessors and owners of such vested rights shall be maintained and protected in the same; and the right-of-way for the construction of ditches and canals for the purposes herein specified is acknowledged and confirmed; but whenever any person, in

  15. Section 28f - Fee

    30 U.S.C. § 28f   Cited 13 times

    (a) Claim maintenance fee (1) Lode mining claims, mill sites, and tunnel sites The holder of each unpatented lode mining claim, mill site, or tunnel site, located pursuant to the mining laws of the United States before, on, or after August 10, 1993, shall pay to the Secretary of the Interior, on or before September 1 of each year, to the extent provided in advance in appropriations Acts, a claim maintenance fee of $100 per claim or site, respectively. Such claim maintenance fee shall be in lieu of

  16. Section 228.8 - Requirements for environmental protection

    36 C.F.R. § 228.8   Cited 24 times
    Identifying federal and state air, water, and solid waste standards that must be complied with and requiring operators to "take all practicable measures to maintain and protect fisheries and wildlife habitat which may be affected by the operations"

  17. Section 228.5 - Plan of operations-approval

    36 C.F.R. § 228.5   Cited 16 times

    (a) Operations shall be conducted in accordance with an approved plan of operations, except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section and in § 228.4 (a), (b), and (e) . A proposed plan of operation shall be submitted to the District Ranger, who shall promptly acknowledge receipt thereof to the operator. The authorized officer shall, within thirty (30) days of such receipt, analyze the proposal, considering the economics of the operation along with the other factors in determining the reasonableness

  18. Section 3809.3 - What rules must I follow if State law conflicts with this subpart?

    43 C.F.R. § 3809.3   Cited 5 times
    Requiring operators to follow "a higher standard " under state law if one has been enacted

  19. Section 3834.11 - Which fees must I pay to maintain a mining claim or site and when do I pay them?

    43 C.F.R. § 3834.11   Cited 1 times

    (a)All mining claims or sites (except oil shale placer claims). Paying the maintenance fee(s) in lieu of performing assessment work satisfies the requirements of the mining law and FLPMA. See § 3830.21 for fee amounts. (1)Location fee and initial maintenance fee. When you first record a mining claim or site with BLM, you must pay a location fee and an initial maintenance fee for the assessment year in which you located the mining claim or site. (2)Annual maintenance fee. You must pay an annual maintenance

  20. Section 3836.12 - What work qualifies as assessment work?

    43 C.F.R. § 3836.12

    Assessment work includes, but is not limited to- (a) Drilling, excavations, driving shafts and tunnels, sampling (geochemical or bulk), road construction on or for the benefit of the mining claim; and (b) Geological, geochemical, and geophysical surveys. 43 C.F.R. § 3836.12