16 U.S.C. § 480
Civil and criminal jurisdiction
The jurisdiction, both civil and criminal, over persons within national forests shall not be affected or changed by reason of their existence, except so far as the punishment of offenses against the United States therein is concerned; the intent and meaning of this provision being that the State wherein any such national forest is situated shall not, by reason of the establishment thereof, lose its jurisdiction, nor the inhabitants thereof their rights and privileges as citizens, or be absolved from their duties as citizens of the State.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 45
cases, 1932–2018 · leading case: United States v. Gabrion, 517 F.3d 839 (6th Cir. 2008).
United States v. Gabrion, 517 F.3d 839 (6th Cir. 2008). “What Gabrion disagrees with the government about is (1) the nature of the jurisdiction offered by the state of Michigan and accepted by the federal government in 1923, (2) the interpretation of and evidentiary value of the government's own jurisdictional reports as well as the…”
United States v. Fields, 516 F.3d 923 (10th Cir. 2008). “Territorial Jurisdiction Permitted by 16 U.S.C. § 480 (Weeks Act) Turning to the relevant federal statutes, Fields argues that the Weeks Act so restricts federal authority in national forests as to peremptorily preclude territorial jurisdiction altogether, even if the State has…”
United States v. Cnty. of Fresno, 429 U.S. 452 (1977). “Pursuant to 16 U. S. C. § 480 , the States retain civil and criminal jurisdiction over the national forests notwithstanding the fact that the national forests are owned by the Federal Government.”
United States v. Gabrion, 648 F.3d 307 (6th Cir. 2011). “2008) (Judges Batchelder and Moore found general, federal criminal subject matter jurisdiction in national forests, and Judge Merritt dissented on a separate ground that 16 U.S.C. § 480 does not criminalize murder in the national forests).”
UTE Indian Tribe v. Utah, 773 F.2d 1087 (10th Cir. 1985). “That the President of the United States is hereby authorized and directed to appoint a commission of three persons to allot in severalty to the Uncompahgre Indians within their reservation, in the Territory of Utah, agricultural and grazing lands according to the treaty of…”
United States v. State of California, 655 F.2d 914 (9th Cir. 1980). “See 16 U.S.C. § 480 . Furthermore, in United States v.”
Hackford v. State of Utah, 845 F.3d 1325 (10th Cir. 2017). “” 16 U.S.C. § 480 ; see United States v. Fields, 516 F.”
United States v. Carmack, 329 U.S. 230 (1947). “963 , 16 U.S.C. § 480 , and 45 Stat. 1224 , 16 U.”
Jimenez v. Fourth Jud. Dist. Attorney's Off., 663 F. App'x 584 (10th Cir. 2016). “tes: The jurisdiction, both civil and criminal, over persons within national forests shall not be affected or changed by reason of their existence, except so far as the punishment of offenses against the United States therein is concerned; the intent and meaning of this…”
Stupak-Thrall v. United States, 89 F.3d 1269 (6th Cir. 1996). “19 The important point to recognize is that the powers the Forest Service possesses under Section 4(b) of the Wilderness Act and under the Organic Act are “subject to valid existing rights” under Section 5 of the MWA.”
Ute Indian Tribe v. State of Utah, 521 F. Supp. 1072 (D. Utah 1981). “See also 16 U.S.C. § 480 (1976) (jurisdiction over national forests).”
United States v. Nebo Oil Co., 90 F. Supp. 73 (W.D. La. 1950). “793 , specifically held that the United States and the state had “concurrent jurisdiction” over lands acquired for national forest purposes under the Weeks Law, 16 U.S.C.A. §§ 480 , 500, .513 et seq., 521, 552, 563, and under ,a statb enabling act identical to the Louisiana…”
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.