50 C.F.R. § 20.24

Daily limit

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

No person shall take in any 1 calendar day, more than the daily bag limit or aggregate daily bag limit, whichever applies.

[38 FR 22021, Aug. 15, 1973, as amended at 38 FR 22626, Aug. 23, 1973]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1979–1997 · leading case: United States v. Lyon, 949 F.2d 240 (8th Cir. 1991).
United States v. Lyon, 949 F.2d 240 (8th Cir. 1991). · cites it 3× “50 C.F.R. § 20.24 (1988). No person shall kill or cripple any migratory game bird * * * without making a reasonable effort to retrieve the bird, and, retain it in his actual custody[.”
United States v. Bookout, 788 F. Supp. 933 (S.D. Tex. 1992). “Exceeding the Daily “Bag Limit”: 50 C.F.R. § 20.24 proscribes the taking of more birds in one calendar day than is allowed by law.”
United States v. Shaw, 467 F. Supp. 86 (W.D. La. 1979). · cites it 2× “See 50 C.F.R. §§ 20.24 , 20.105(d). The United States Attorney commenced this action on February 16, 1978 by a series of Informations charging that each defendant “unlawfully did jointly take, in one calendar day, more than the daily bag limit of ducks.”
United States v. Doepel, 755 F. Supp. 249 (E.D. Ark. 1991). “50 C.F.R. § 20.24 provides: No person shall take in any one calendar day, more than the daily bag limit or aggregate daily bag limit, whichever applies.”
United States v. Edwards, 976 F. Supp. 807 (E.D. Ark. 1997). · cites it 2× “Metcalfs encounter with SA Parker. On May 12, 1997, an information was filed by the United States Attorney charging all five hunters with taking in excess of the daily bag limit of ducks ( 50 C.”
United States v. Edwards, 976 F. Supp. 810 (E.D. Ark. 1997). “The government voluntarily dismissed the wanton waste charge, and the defendant was convicted of exceeding the allowable limit of migratory game birds under 50 C.F.R. § 20.24 . Undaunted, the government has forged ahead in the cases sub judice with a full combination of charges.”
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.