16 U.S.C. § 476
Repealed. Pub. L. 94–588, § 13, Oct. 22, 1976, 90 Stat. 2958
[repealed]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15
cases, 1971–1996 · leading case: Sierra Club v. Hardin, 325 F. Supp. 99 (D. Alaska 1971).
Sierra Club v. Hardin, 325 F. Supp. 99 (D. Alaska 1971). “The timber sale violates 16 U.S. C.A. § 476 (1960) and 36 C.F.R. 221.”
Cape Fox Corp. v. United States, 456 F. Supp. 784 (D. Alaska 1978). “Note 16 U.S.C. § 476 governed the sale of national forest timber.”
Clearwater Forest Indus., Inc. v. United States, 227 Ct. Cl. 386 (Ct. Cl. 1981). “7 (a), (as well as the statute, 16 U.S.C. § 476 (now 16 U.S.C. § 472 (a)), in advance of sale.”
Gene Peters v. The United States, 694 F.2d 687 (Fed. Cir. 1982). “The regulations of the Department of Agriculture, however, delegate the Secretary’s statutory authority to sell timber ( 16 U.S.C. § 476 (1974)) to the Chief of the Forest Service and authorize the latter to delegate this authority to subordinates, 36 C.”
Louisiana-Pac. Corp. v. United States, 228 Ct. Cl. 363 (Ct. Cl. 1981). “35 , codified at 16 U.S.C. § 476 (1976) (repealed by Pub. L.”
Intermountain Forest Indus. Ass'n v. Lyng, 683 F. Supp. 1330 (D. Wyo. 1988). “16 U.S.C. § 476 ; Hi-Ridge Lumber Co. v. United States, 443 F.”
West Virginia Div. of the Izaak Walton League of Am., Inc. v. Earl L. Butz, Sec'y of Agric. of the United States, 522 F.2d 945 (4th Cir. 1975). “The plaintiffs charged that the contracts with respect to the 428 acres violated the sales provision of the Act, 16 U.S.C. § 476 , which reads in pertinent part as follows: “For the purpose of preserving the living and growing timber and promoting the younger growth on national…”
Miller v. Mallery, 410 F. Supp. 1283 (D. Or. 1976). “§ 1862 ; 3) Organic Act, 16 U.S.C. § 476 ; 4) National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.”
Texas Comm. On Nat. Resources v. Bergland, 573 F.2d 201 (5th Cir. 1978). “The sale of timber in national forests was originally controlled by the Organic Act of 1897, 16 U.S.C. § 476 . That act provided for the sale of “dead, matured, or large growth of trees.”
Georgia Pac. Corp. v. Cnty. of Mendocino, 357 F. Supp. 380 (N.D. Cal. 1973). “Al *386 though it is true that plaintiffs cannot enter the sale areas and determine independently which trees they will harvest up to the volume specified by the contracts, they are assured of the exclusive right to harvest whatever trees are suitable for cutting in accordance…”
Hi-Ridge Lumber Co. v. United States, 443 F.2d 452 (9th Cir. 1971). “Section 476 as an example of his broad discretion specifically provides that “In cases in which advertisement is had and no satisfactory bid is received, or in cases in which the bidder fails to complete the purchase, the timber may.”
Int'l Paper Co. v. Cnty. of Siskiyou, 515 F.2d 285 (9th Cir. 1974). “” The statute which authorizes sales of timber from national forests, 16 U.S.C. § 476 , provides that “[s]uch timber, before being sold, shall be marked and designated, and shall be cut and removed under the supervision of some person appointed for that purpose by the Secretary…”
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.