
Court rules “Dueling Dinos” belong to landowners - sohkamyung
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/court-rules-dueling-dinos-belong-landowners-win-science
======
AlexCoventry
What were the legal arguments which swayed the minority of judges to vote for
fossil rights falling under mineral rights?

~~~
thaumaturgy
You can read the full court finding here: [https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-
content/uploads/2020/05/Di...](https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-
content/uploads/2020/05/DinosaurFossils-MontSC.pdf) (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
Thanks. 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
Does 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
I 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
_Cuius 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_usqu...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuius_est_solum,_eius_est_usque_ad_coelum_et_ad_inferos)

