36 C.F.R. § 4.2

State law applicable

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Unless specifically addressed by regulations in this chapter, traffic and the use of vehicles within a park area are governed by State law. State law that is now or may later be in effect is adopted and made a part of the regulations in this part.

(b) Violating a provision of State law is prohibited.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 58 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1989–2024 · leading case: United States v. Donald Fox, 60 F.3d 181 (4th Cir. 1995).
United States v. Donald Fox, 60 F.3d 181 (4th Cir. 1995). · cites it 12× “We will then discuss Fox’s reasons for contending that he should have been prosecuted under 36 C.F.R. § 4.2 , which provides for a much lower sentence than the district court imposed.”
United States v. Bohn, 622 F.3d 1129 (9th Cir. 2010). · cites it 8× “*1133 The ranger cited Defendant for failure to wear a helmet, in violation of 36 C.F.R. § 4.2 (b), and for refusing to obey a lawful order, in violation of 36 C.”
State, Dep't of Motor Vehs. & Pub. Saf. v. Lovett, 874 P.2d 1247 (Nev. 1994). · cites it 8× “" 36 C.F.R. §§ 4.2 (a), (b) (1992). The DMV argues that because federal rangers are authorized to make arrests for violations of traffic laws, that Regnell falls within the definition of "police officer.”
United States v. Bibbins, 637 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir. 2011). · cites it 5× “32 (a)(1); and (2) obstructing a license plate, in violation of 36 C.F.R. § 4.2 (b) and Nevada Revised Statutes § 482.”
United States v. Farmer, 820 F. Supp. 259 (W.D. Va. 1993). · cites it 8× “23 (a) (1992) and reckless driving in violation of 36 C.F.R. § 4.2 (1992) (incorporating Va,.”
Wilderness Soc'y v. Kane Cnty., 581 F.3d 1198 (10th Cir. 2009). · cites it 2× “See 36 C.F.R. § 4.2 (a) (“Unless specifically addressed by regulations in this chapter, traffic and the use of vehicles within a park area are governed by State law.”
United States v. Jack A. Gibson, 896 F.2d 206 (6th Cir. 1990). · cites it 2× “§ 3 ; 36 C.F.R. § 4.2 ; Tenn.Code Ann. § 55-10-616; (3) refusal to submit to a blood alcohol test, 16 U.”
United States v. Wornom, 754 F. Supp. 517 (W.D. Va. 1991). · cites it 4× “The magistrate held that, in accordance with 36 C.F.R. § 4.2 , section 4.21 is an assimilated statute which incorporates state law and consequently the government must comply *520 with state law requirements for radar evidence.”
United States v. Parker, 919 F. Supp. 2d 1072 (E.D. Cal. 2013). · cites it 4× “35 (b)(2); Count 3: Driving on a suspended license in violation of 36 C.F.R. § 4.2 (b) incorporating California Vehicle Code section 14601.”
United States v. Phillip Berry, 866 F.2d 887 (6th Cir. 1989). · cites it 2× “See 36 C.F.R. § 4.2 (a) (1987). The previous language makes no reference to such laws.”
Newton v. Parker Drilling Mgmt. Servs., Ltd., 881 F.3d 1078 (9th Cir. 2018). “[,] ” 36 C.F.R. § 4.2 , the National Park Service clearly expressed its intent for all nonconflicting state traffic laws to apply on federal enclaves.”
United States v. Caine, 517 F. Supp. 2d 586 (D. Mass. 2007). · cites it 2× “” 36 C.F.R. § 4.2 (a). However, 36 C.F.R. § 4.”
— 36 C.F.R. § 4.2(b) — 2 cases
United States v. Parker, 919 F. Supp. 2d 1072 (E.D. Cal. 2013). “35 (b)(2); Count 3: Driving on a suspended license in violation of 36 C.F.R. § 4.2 (b) incorporating California Vehicle Code section 14601.”
United States v. Rogers, 865 F. Supp. 718 (D. Colo. 1994).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.