C.F.R. » Title 50 » CHAPTER I—UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR › SUBCHAPTER B—TAKING, POSSESSION, TRANSPORTATION, SALE, PURCHASE, BARTER, EXPORTATION, AND IMPORTATION OF WILDLIFE AND PLANTS › PART 20—MIGRATORY BIRD HUNTING › Subpart D—Possession

50 C.F.R. § 20.35

Field possession limit

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

No person shall possess, have in custody, or transport more than the daily bag limit or aggregate daily bag limit, whichever applies, of migratory game birds, tagged or not tagged, at or between the place where taken and either (a) his automobile or principal means of land transportation; or (b) his personal abode or temporary or transient place of lodging; or (c) a migratory bird preservation facility; or (d) a post office; or (e) a common carrier facility.

[41 FR 31536, July 29, 1976]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1978–2002 · leading case: United States v. George L. Carson, 793 F.2d 1141 (10th Cir. 1986).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. George L. Carson, 793 F.2d 1141 (10th Cir. 1986). “§ 703 and 50 C.F.R. §§ 20.35 and 20.72. Carson was found guilty and sentenced by a United States Magistrate on March 8, 1983.”
United States v. Morgan, 311 F.3d 611 (5th Cir. 2002). “50 C.F.R. § 20.35 (2002). 2 . We reviewed on direct appeal a conviction under § 703 for possession of migratory birds over the daily limit in United States v.”
United States v. George L. Carson, 762 F.2d 833 (10th Cir. 1985). “703 , 50 C.F.R. 20.35 and 50 C.F.R. 20.72. Section 20.”
United States v. Carson, 762 F.2d 831 (10th Cir. 1985). · cites it 2× “§ 703 , 50 C.F.R. §§ 20.35 and 20.72. He consented to a trial before a United States Magistrate and waived a jury.”
United States v. David S. Morgan, 283 F.3d 322 (5th Cir. 2002). “50 C.F.R. § 20.35 (2002). . We reviewed on direct appeal a conviction under § 703 for possession of migratory birds over the daily limit in United States v.”
United States v. Dudley Wilkins Coates, 573 F.2d 257 (5th Cir. 1978). “§§ 703 & 704 & 50 C.F.R. 20.35. In an unpublished per curiam opinion, we vacated the judgment of the court below and remanded the cause for further proceedings, in view of the uncertainty concerning whether appellant had timely consented to be tried before the magistrate, and,…”
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.