16 U.S.C. § 57

Yosemite, Sequoia, and General Grant National Parks; exclusive jurisdiction of United States; jurisdiction remaining in and taxation by California

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

Sole and exclusive jurisdiction is assumed by the United States over the territory embraced and included within the Yosemite National Park, Sequoia National Park, and General Grant National Park, respectively, saving, however, to the State of California the right to serve civil or criminal process within the limits of the aforesaid parks or either of them in suits or prosecutions for or on account of rights acquired, obligations incurred, or crimes committed in said State outside of said parks; and saving further to the said State the right to tax persons and corporations, their franchises and property on the lands included in said parks, and the right to fix and collect license fees for fishing in said parks; and saving also to the persons residing in any of said parks now or hereafter the right to vote at all elections held within the county or counties in which said parks are situated.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1937–2024 · leading case: Coso Energy Developers v. Cnty. of Inyo, 2004 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9178 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Coso Energy Developers v. Cnty. of Inyo, 2004 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9178 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004). “( 16 U.S.C. § 57 ; Collins, supra, 304 U.S.”

Collins v. Yosemite Park & Curry Co., 304 U.S. 518 (1938). “731 , 16 U. S. C. § 57 . “Be it enacted by the Senate and Home of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the provisions of the act of the Legislature of the State of California (approved April 15,1919), ceding- to the United States exclusive…”

Muchhala v. United States, 532 F. Supp. 2d 1215 (E.D. Cal. 2007). “Here, even though the relevant events took place within the boundaries of Yosemite National Park, an exclusive federal enclave, 16 U.S.C. § 57 , it is undisputed that California tort law provides the applicable substantive law with respect to the underlying tort claim.”

Yosemite Park & Curry Co. v. Collins, 20 F. Supp. 1009 (N.D. Cal. 1937). “11 41 Stat 731, 16 U.S.C.A. § 57 . 12 Session Laws Wash.1901, c.”

Yellow Cab Transit Co. v. Johnson, 48 F. Supp. 594 (W.D. Okla. 1942). “y Act of April 15, 1919, California granted exclusive jurisdiction over the Park as a whole, saving certain rights, including the right ‘to tax persons and corporations, their franchises and property’ on the lands included; a-nd- this was accepted by the Act of Congress of June…”

Williams v. Aramark Campus LLC (E.D. Cal. 2023). · cites it 2× “16 U.S.C. § 57 ; see also Collins v. Yosemite Park & Curry Co.”

Vega v. DNC Parks & Resorts at Asilomar, Inc. (E.D. Cal. 2019). “16 U.S.C. § 57 (“Sole and exclusive 13 jurisdiction is assumed by the United States over the territory embraced and included within the 14 Yosemite National Park [and] Sequoia National Park”).”

Hugger v. Aramark Campus LLC (E.D. Cal. 2024). “1 16 U.S.C. § 57 . As all the allegations in the complaint occurred within Yosemite National Park, 2 the California CRD had no subject matter jurisdiction over Hugger’s claims.”

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.