16 U.S.C. § 1901

Repealed. Pub. L. 113–287, § 7, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3272

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 16 CasesGoogle Scholar

[repealed]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1980–2007 · leading case: Historic Green Springs, Inc. v. Bergland, 497 F. Supp. 839 (E.D. Va. 1980).
Historic Green Springs, Inc. v. Bergland, 497 F. Supp. 839 (E.D. Va. 1980). · cites it 2× “Designation of the District as a landmark triggers review under the Mining in the Parks Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1901 et seq., of any surface mining activity in the District which could have a harmful effect on the registered property.”
Hafen v. United States, 30 Fed. Cl. 470 (Fed. Cl. 1994). · cites it 2× “1342 (1976), 16 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq (1993). Subject to valid existing rights, the MPA prohibits the exploration, mining and purchase of all mineral deposits within the National Park System.”
Tom Brown v. United States Dep't of Interior, 679 F.2d 747 (8th Cir. 1982). “Furthermore, as the IBLA decision notes, the legislative history of the Mining Activities within the National Park Systems Areas Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq., provides ample support for the proposition that areas of the National Park System are not open for mining claims unless…”
United States v. 191.07 Acres of Land, & Milan Martinek, 482 F.3d 1132 (9th Cir. 2007). “In 1980 Congress expanded Denali Park’s boundaries to encompass the eleven claims, which thereby came under the National Park Service’s surface management jurisdiction pursuant to the Mining in the Parks Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq. In 1985 the United States District Court for…”
Alaska Limestone Corp. v. Hodel, 614 F. Supp. 642 (D. Alaska 1985). “16 U.S.C. § 1901 (b) (1982) (emphasis added).”
United States v. Martinek (9th Cir. 2007). “In 1980 Congress expanded Denali Park’s boundaries to encompass the eleven claims, which thereby came under the National Park Service’s surface man- agement jurisdiction pursuant to the Mining in the Parks Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq. In 1985 the United States District Court…”
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.