Press Release: Rise Gold’s Vested Rights Lawsuit First Hearing Pending

On January 9, 2026, Rise Gold’s long-delayed lawsuit seeking vested rights to reopen the Idaho-Maryland Mine will be heard for the first time in Nevada County Superior Court. The case centers on whether decades of closure, bankruptcy, and inactivity extinguished any historic mining rights—an argument strongly disputed by the County following its unanimous denial of Rise’s claims.

---

For Immediate Release: December 31, 2025

Contacts:

CEA Foundation

commgr@cea-nc.org

PRESS RELEASE

Rise Gold’s Vested Rights Lawsuit First Hearing Pending

Grass Valley, CA - Rise Gold's long delayed legal battle to win vested rights claims for the Idaho-Maryland Mine is headed for a first day in court. Following the unanimous denials of both a Vested Rights claim and a Use Permit by the Nevada County Board of Supervisors, Rise responded with a lawsuit in May of 2024 seeking to overturn both decisions. Now, after lengthy delays, the vested rights issue is being addressed, and both parties have submitted briefs outlining their respective arguments.

The claim that the court will determine is this– does Rise, as the current owner of the Idaho-Maryland mine, have a vested right (i.e., a historical right) to conduct mining operations? And if Rise does have a vested right, then what is the “scope” of that right?

The Origin of Vested Rights

What is a Vested Property Right? A vested right is a legally protected entitlement to continue existing operations after development code changes are introduced that would restrict it. In this case, when the County of Nevada formally adopted an initial comprehensive zoning ordinance on October 10, 1954, a vested property right likely would have allowed the mine to continue operating based on pre-existing, legal, and now “non-conforming” property uses. The Idaho-Maryland Mines Corporation (the corporate owner of the Idaho-Maryland Mine in October 1954) had a pre-existing, legal property use suddenly rendered “non-conforming” under the then new zoning ordinance. Therefore, the owner at that time may have been entitled to a Vested Property Right to continue mining at that time.

Were the Vested Rights Maintained?

The history of mining at the site becomes relevant to a vested rights claim. All mining and milling of gold halted at the IM Mine by December 27, 1955. The IM Mine was closed in 1956; all mining operations ceased at that time. All mining equipment was auctioned off in 1957. The property owner went bankrupt in 1962. In 1963 the entire mine property was auctioned off, sold to William and Marian Ghidotti.

Rise states that a combination of intent and various activities after 1962 (after the Idaho-Maryland Mines Corporation declared bankruptcy) preserved the rights.

For example, Rise argues that processing of mine waste on the Centennial site in 1980 demonstrates operations which maintained the vested rights. When the Ghidottis sought and were granted a Use Permit in 1980 for the ongoing gravel operations there, Rise claims that “[the county] agreed that mining had been taking place in 1954—which is all that is required to determine that a vested right exists”.

Rebutting the claim that the County recognized a vested right in 1980, the County flatly denies any such recognition was granted: “No County entity determined any “vested rights” in 1980.” The County further argues that permits issued after 1962 show no vested rights were believed to exist, and adds that the County-approved Use Permits in 1980 “explicitly forbade underground mining.”

Nevertheless, Rise maintains that “The County did recognize in writing that mining activities are “an existing, non-conforming use” at the property”. Furthermore, Rise claims there was no intent or act of abandonment of the gold mining business; that the sale of some of the surface parcels did not materially affect the business of gold mining, because of the retention of mineral rights, which preserved mining potential.

Rise relies heavily on the 1996 legal case “Hansen Brothers Enterprises, Inc. v. Nevada County Board of Supervisors” for legal precedent. In that case, a long period of inactivity on one site at the Hansen land holdings was determined to not constitute abandonment, and that since Hansen intended to remove aggregate feedstock from that site in the future, the vested rights persisted. The County has countered that the Hansen Brothers case involved a business that did not close or liquidate, but continued some operations. They further note that this was an aggregate business, not a mineral extraction sub-surface mining operation. For this reason, the County claims that this case law is not applicable to the Rise Gold case.

The County notes that underground mining ceased in 1956 and never resumed, and therefore any vested rights that might have been valid at that time were abandoned. The County additionally cites cessation of mining, closure of the business, auction of the properties, flooding of the mine, and decades of inactivity as clear evidence of abandonment.

Regarding the sale of some of the surface parcels, while retaining subsurface mineral rights, the County says this shows typical real estate investment, not a further intent to continue the business of gold mining. The County also argues that the sale undermines Rise’s own theory: “So even if a vested right once existed, the sale to, and ownership by, Mountain Enterprises amounts to abandonment as to those parcels.”

Regarding the scope of the claimed Vested Property Right, Rise asserts that the right covers all operations involved in mining across 2,560 subsurface acres. The County seeks to limit any vested property right to activities actually occurring in October 1954 on a site specific basis, and contests some of the operations that Rise claims to document. Of course, the scope of the right is only relevant if the court first determines that a Vested Property Right existed, and has been transferred though a chain of ownership to the current owner, Rise Grass Valley, Inc.

A Long Legal Battle Looms

Rise Gold has repeatedly signaled that if the vested rights claim is denied, it will appeal and seek a higher court. Embedded within Rise’s claims are statements such as “...constitutional rights do not simply expire over time; they must be knowingly and affirmatively abandoned.” and “The vested right to mine at the Idaho-Maryland Mine is constitutionally protected by the takings clause guarantees of the United States and California Constitutions.”

The Rise case relies upon the Hansen case which states ‘Abandonment of a nonconforming use involves both an intent to abandon and “an overt act,...”.’

Interestingly, the County cites the same case law as Rise, but illustrates that the text continues on: ‘Abandonment of a nonconforming use involves both an intent to abandon and “an overt act, or failure to act, …”.’

Considering the perceived intentions of Rise Gold, it seems possible that it will be years before this case is finally settled. The next step in this legal odyssey will take place January 9, 2026, when the Nevada County Superior Court will hold the first hearing for the Rise Grass Valley versus County of Nevada case. It will be interesting to see where it all ends.

***

About CEA Foundation: Community Environmental Advocates Foundation (CEA Foundation) performs research, education, and advocacy to promote responsible land use and environmental protection policies in Nevada County. CEA Foundation is the leader of MineWatch, a campaign that brings together a coalition of nonprofit organizations, residents, and businesses opposed to the Idaho-Maryland Mine.