16 U.S.C. § 403

Establishment; boundaries

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

When title to lands within the areas hereinafter referred to shall have been vested in the United States in fee simple there are established, dedicated, and set apart as public parks for the benefit and enjoyment of the people, the tract of land in the Blue Ridge, in the State of Virginia, being approximately five hundred and twenty-one thousand acres recommended by the Secretary of the Interior in his report of April 14, 1926, which area, or any part or parts thereof as may be accepted on behalf of the United States in accordance with the provisions hereof, shall be known as the Shenandoah National Park; and the tract of land in the Great Smoky Mountains in the States of North Carolina and Tennessee being approximately seven hundred and four thousand acres, recommended by the Secretary of the Interior in his report of April 14, 1926, which area, or any part or parts thereof as may be accepted on behalf of the United States in accordance with the provisions hereof, shall be known as the Great Smoky Mountains National Park: Provided, That the United States shall not purchase by appropriation of public moneys any land within the aforesaid areas, but that such lands shall be secured by the United States only by public or private donation.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 1937–2001 · leading case: Riggs v. Burson, 941 S.W.2d 44 (Tenn. 1997).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Riggs v. Burson, 941 S.W.2d 44 (Tenn. 1997). “— (a) Land in a tourist resort county unthin nine (9) miles of the boundary of a national park established pursuant to 16 U.S.C. § 403 cannot be used as a heliport.”

Morton Butler Timber Co. v. United States, 91 F.2d 884 (6th Cir. 1937). “[ 16 U.S.C.A. § 403 et seq.]), establishing the Great Smoky Mountains National Park.”

United States v. Jarrell, 143 F. Supp. 2d 605 (W.D. Va. 2001). “§ 403c-3, rather than under 16 U.S.C. § 403 (c)(3), the latter being a provision that does not exist in the United States Code.”

United States v. Richard W. McLean, 688 F.2d 242 (4th Cir. 1982). · cites it 2× “See 16 U.S.C. § 403 (1974). He argues that the district court accordingly erred in denying his motion to dismiss for want of subject matter jurisdiction.”

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.