50 C.F.R. § 10.3
Other applicable laws
No statute or regulation of any State shall be construed to relieve a person from the restrictions, conditions, and requirements contained in this subchapter B. In addition, nothing in this subchapter B, nor any permit issued under this subchapter B, shall be construed to relieve a person from any other requirements imposed by a statute or regulation of any State or of the United States, including any applicable health, quarantine, agricultural, or customs laws or regulations, or other Service enforced statutes or regulations.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1961–2023 · leading case: Man Hing Ivory & Imports, Inc., a California Corp. v. George Deukmejian, Governor of the State of California, 702 F.2d 760 (9th Cir. 1983).
Man Hing Ivory & Imports, Inc., a California Corp. v. George Deukmejian, Governor of the State of California, 702 F.2d 760 (9th Cir. 1983). “50 C.F.R. § 10.3 (1981). This general provision is the source of condition 11(B).”
State v. Billie, 497 So. 2d 889 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). “See also 50 C.F.R. § 10.3 (1985). Thus, the Endangered Species Act and the regulations promulgated pursuant thereto do not specifically preempt state law in the conservation area.”
United States v. Edward Morgan Wood & Jean Wood, 437 F.2d 91 (9th Cir. 1971). “§§ 703-711 and 50 C.F.R. § 10.3 (b) (9). The charge was taking migratory water fowl over a baited area.”
United States v. James E. Prince, Jr., 430 F.2d 1324 (4th Cir. 1970). “§ 703 and 50 C.F.R. 10.3(b) (4). The evidence in Prince’s trial before the United States Commissioner disclosed that while Prince operated the motor, his companion, standing in the bow, shot a rail bird.”
Renwick L. Allen & Courtney Vallentine v. Lawrence J. Merovka, L. J. Dugger, & Robert G. Kinghorn, 382 F.2d 589 (10th Cir. 1967). “The appellees rely for their acts upon the regulation concerning the baiting of waterfowl, 50 C.F.R. § 10.3 (b) (9). This regulation relates to “hunting methods,” and to prohibited hunting methods.”
United States v. Jones, 347 F. Supp. 2d 626 (E.D. Wis. 2004). “Specifically, the Information alleges that on or about July 29, 2004, im the State and Eastern District of Wisconsin Jones “without being permitted to do so, did unlawfully take migratory birds, to wit: 10 ring-billed gulls (Larus delawarensis) as defined in 50 C.F.R. § 10.3 .”…”
Falk v. United States Ex Rel. Dep't of the Interior, 452 F.3d 951 (8th Cir. 2006). “at 590 (citing 50 C.F.R. § 10.3 (b)(9)). By contrast, 50 C.”
United States v. Donald D. Bohling, 399 F.2d 305 (6th Cir. 1968). “Appellant was tried in the District Court on an information charging him with aiding and abetting others in violation of Regulation 50 C.F.R. § 10.3 (b) (9) made pursuant to the Migratory Bird Act, 16 U.”
United States v. Tarmon, 227 F. Supp. 480 (D. Maryland 1964). “One of the prohibited methods was as follows, 50 C.F.R. § 10.3 (b) (9), 1961 ed.: “By the aid of baiting, or on or over any baited, area.”
United States v. Cain, 454 F.2d 1285 (7th Cir. 1972). “Defendants argue that the Government did not prove any violation of 50 C.F.R. § 10.3 (b) (9). However, this section prohibits the “.”
United States v. Olesen, 196 F. Supp. 688 (S.D. Cal. 1961). “” 50 C.F.R. § 10.3 (b) (9). Defendant has pleaded “not guilty.”
April in Paris v. Becerra (E.D. Cal. 2020). “In addition, nothing in this subchapter B, nor any permit issued under this subchapter B, shall be 27 construed to relieve a person from any other requirements imposed by a statute or regulation of any State or of the United States, including any applicable health, quarantine,…”
— 50 C.F.R. § 10.3(b) — 1 case
United States v. James E. Prince, Jr., 430 F.2d 1324 (4th Cir. 1970). “§ 703 and 50 C.F.R. 10.3(b) (4). The evidence in Prince’s trial before the United States Commissioner disclosed that while Prince operated the motor, his companion, standing in the bow, shot a rail bird.”
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.