C.F.R. » Title 43 » CHAPTER II—BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR › SUBCHAPTER D—RANGE MANAGEMENT (4000) Group 4100—Grazing Administration › PART 4100—GRAZING ADMINISTRATION—EXCLUSIVE OF ALASKA › Subpart 4150—Unauthorized Grazing Use

43 C.F.R. § 4150.1

Violations

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

Violation of § 4140.1(b)(1) constitutes unauthorized grazing use.

(a) The authorized officer shall determine whether a violation is nonwillful, willful, or repeated willful.

(b) Violators shall be liable in damages to the United States for the forage consumed by their livestock, for injury to Federal property caused by their unauthorized grazing use, and for expenses incurred in impoundment and disposal of their livestock, and may be subject to civil penalties or criminal sanction for such unlawful acts.

[43 FR 29067, July 5, 1978, as amended at 47 FR 41712, Sept. 21, 1982; 60 FR 9968, Feb. 22, 1995]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1997–2019 · leading case: Temple v. Cleve Her Many Horses, 163 F. Supp. 3d 602 (D.S.D. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Temple v. Cleve Her Many Horses, 163 F. Supp. 3d 602 (D.S.D. 2016). “Compare 43 CFR §§ 4150.1 to .4-5, with 25 CFR §§ 166.”
Klump v. United States, 54 Fed. Cl. 167 (Fed. Cl. 2002). · cites it 4× “The court noted that the BLM regulations, found at 43 C.F.R. §§ 4150.1 , et seq., anticipate the payment of the sale proceeds less any costs or fines imposed upon the cattle owner, and, as such, constitute money-mandating regulations within the meaning of the Tucker Act.”
Klump v. United States, 38 Fed. Cl. 243 (Fed. Cl. 1997). “To deter such unauthorized infringement of government property rights and to ensure that the government is compensated for any damages resulting from such unauthorized grazing, 43 C.F.R. § 4150.1 establishes sanctions.”
United States v. Est. of E. Wayne Hage (9th Cir. 2019). “1 (b)(1)(i) (prohibiting unauthorized grazing on BLM-administered land); 43 C.F.R. § 4150.1 (providing that violations of § 4140.”
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.