16 U.S.C. § 3
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE INSTITUTE.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 124
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1937–2023 · leading case: United States v. Masciandaro, 638 F.3d 458 (4th Cir. 2011).
United States v. Masciandaro, 638 F.3d 458 (4th Cir. 2011). “These regulations were promulgated by the Secretary of the Interior under 16 U.S.C. § 3 , which authorizes the Secretary to “make and publish such rules and regulations as he may deem necessary *461 or proper for the use and management of the parks, monuments, and reservations…”
United States v. Barry L. Brown, 364 F.3d 1266 (11th Cir. 2004). “Because we find in this case that Congress, and hot the Secretary, provided the punishment for violations of the Secretary’s regulations, and because Congress set standards that are sufficiently specific to guide the Secretary when promulgating regulations which are “necessary…”
United States v. Jack A. Gibson, 896 F.2d 206 (6th Cir. 1990). “At the start of his trial in district court, Gibson pled guilty to four offenses: (1) driving under the influence of an intoxicant, 16 U.S.C. § 3 ; 36 C.F.R. § 4.23 (a); (2) driving on a revoked license, 16 U.”
Sierra Club v. Mainella, 459 F. Supp. 2d 76 (D.D.C. 2012). “Under 16 U.S.C. § 3 , the Secretary has the authority to promulgate "such rules and regulations as he may deem necessary or proper for the use and management of the parks .”
United States v. Nachtigal, 507 U.S. 1 (1993). “The court also found it significant that the Secretary of the Interior, in whom Congress vested general regulatory authority to fix six months as the maximum sentence for any regulatory offense dealing with the use and management of the national parks, monuments, or…”
Yosemite Park & Curry Co. v. United States, 217 Ct. Cl. 360 (Ct. Cl. 1978). “The contractual relationship between plaintiff and the defendant, operating through the NPS of the Department of the Interior, began in May of 1963, when they executed a concession contract pursuant to 16 U.S.C. § 3 (1976). Under the terms of this agreement, defendant granted to…”
United States v. Woods, 450 F. Supp. 1335 (D. Maryland 1978). “Therefore, it is this Court’s belief that no valid analogy can be drawn between traffic offenses involving more primitive modes of transportation and those committed in the heavy and powerful motor vehicles of today.”
United States v. Brotzman, 708 F. Supp. 713 (D. Maryland 1989). “1977), the particular offense committed by this defendant was not an assimilated offense, but was a violation of a federal regulation duly promulgated by the Secretary of the Interior under statutory authority codified in 16 U.S. C. § 3 (1982). Thus, the Government argued, the…”
River Runners for Wilderness v. Martin, 593 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2010). “]” 16 U.S.C. § 3 . Plaintiffs contend that the 2006 Management Plan is arbitrary and capricious because it permits commercial boaters to use the river at levels that interfere with free access by the public, and because it concludes that motorized uses do not impair the natural…”
Daniel Lesoeur v. United States, 21 F.3d 965 (9th Cir. 1994). “§ la-2 states: “In order to facilitate the administration of the national park system, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized, under such terms and conditions as he may deem advisable, to carry out the following activities: .”
United States v. Masciandaro, 648 F. Supp. 2d 779 (E.D. Va. 2009). “4 (b) (2007) and 16 U.S.C. § 3 . Specifically, Masciandaro argues (i) that the Magistrate Judge erred by applying the regulation in force at the time of the offense conduct, rather than the later-amended regulation in force at the time of trial and sentencing; (ii) that the…”
WildEarth Guardians v. Nat'l Park Serv., 703 F.3d 1178 (10th Cir. 2013). “But the National Park Service Organic Act (Organic Act) states: “The Secretary of the Interior ... may also provide in his discretion for the destruction of such animals and of such plant life as may be detrimental to the use of any said park.”
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.