6 ms·
Court rules “Dueling Dinos” belong to landowners
- AlexCoventry 6y agoWhat were the legal arguments which swayed the minority of judges to vote for fossil rights falling under mineral rights?
- thaumaturgy 6y agoYou can read the full court finding here: https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/DinosaurFossils-MontSC.pdf https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Di... (linked from the article) The concurring opinion delves into the common and dictionary definitions of the word "mineral" for the purposes of mineral rights and finds that fossils, in general, are not valuable because of their mineral content, so they should not fall under mineral rights laws. The dissenting opinion cites previous cases the same court had handled in mineral rights disputes and further notes that the legislature had already passed a law clarifying fossil rights with the exception to any fossils currently involved in court cases, so the question at hand was whether this particular fossil was considered a mineral under Montana law. The dissenting opinion also points out that diamonds, composed entirely of carbon, pass the ruling's "rare and exceptional" test for value, despite being composed of something that's neither rare nor valuable. So why are these fossils being treated differently from diamonds? As a fossil nerd I'm glad the ruling landed the way it did, but as a totally-ignorant-of-jurisprudence-layman, the dissenting opinion is more compelling and seems better written. Since it was a 4-3 decision I was a little curious about the political leanings of the justices, but that data doesn't appear to be available.
- AlexCoventry 6y agoThanks. That's so interesting. I couldn't think of any legal reason to support the suit, since parties to a "mineral rights" contract are obviously thinking in terms of mining, and a valid contract must involve a "meeting of the minds." But it seems as though to some judges the words of the contract matter more than the parties' intents.
- 650REDHAIR 6y agoDoes anyone else think it’s insane that you can own the land your house is on, but not under it? Is there a good reason this exists? Is it like that in other parts of the developed world?
- NikolaeVarius 6y agoI mean we can get into the philosophical/legal nuances of what it means to "own" something. In NYC, there are air rights which partitions ownership of the literal air above you. Should "owning" a piece of land entitle you to everything from the earths core all the way into deep space?
- labster 6y agoCuius est solum, eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos Traditionally it goes further, all the way to heaven and hell. But in modern times, air rights are limited to what you can actually use from the surface; airplanes don’t trespass, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuius_est_solum,_eius_est_usque_ad_coelum_et_ad_inferos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuius_est_solum,_eius_est_usqu...
- __s 6y agoHeinlein wrote a short story on this premise, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_Who_Sold_the_Moon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_Who_Sold_the_Moon
- flyGuyOnTheSly 6y agoIf you don't own what's under your house, you or somebody who owned the land before you sold or relinquished the mineral rights to somebody else. No particular reason this exists besides capitalism and maximizing efficiency.
- yxhuvud 6y agoOr, depending on the country, it was never part of the property right in the first place.