U.S. Code » Title 16 » Chapter CHAPTER 79— NATIONAL PARK SERVICE MANAGEMENT › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER II— NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM RESOURCE INVENTORY AND MANAGEMENT

16 U.S.C. § 5937

Repealed. Pub. L. 113–287, § 7, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3272

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

[repealed]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 2000–2004 · leading case: Police Patrol Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Prince George's Cnty., 838 A.2d 1191 (Md. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Police Patrol Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Prince George's Cnty., 838 A.2d 1191 (Md. 2003). “(quoting 1998 Parks Act § 207, 16 U.S.C. § 5937 ). The Forest Service determined that the information requested fell within the 1998 Parks Act, precluding release of all data that would reveal the location of goshawk nest sites.”
Sw. Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. United States Dep't of Agric., 314 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2002). · cites it 3× “The only issue in this appeal is whether § 207 of the National Parks Omnibus Management Act (“1998 Parks Act”), 16 U.S.C. § 5937 , which creates a statutory exemption from the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), applies to the present *1061 case that was pending when that…”
City of Chicago v. United States Dep't of the Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms, 384 F.3d 429 (7th Cir. 2004). “” 16 U.S.C. § 5937 . As a result of the unusual language in the 2003 and 2004 appropriations measures, the question to us is whether, in enacting the pertinent provisions of the bills in question, Congress engaged in “repeal by implication” — that is to say, whether Congress…”
Sw. Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. United States Dep't of Agric., 170 F. Supp. 2d 931 (D. Ariz. 2000). · cites it 5× “” On August 3, 1999, the Court remanded this case to the Department of Interior (“DOI”) for a determination regarding the potential applicability of section 207 of the National Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998 (“Section 207”), 16 U.S.C. § 5937 , which had been enacted on…”
City of Chicago v. TREA (7th Cir. 2004). “” 16 U.S.C. § 5937 . As a result of the unusual language in the 2003 and 2004 appropriations measures, the question to us is whether, in enacting the pertinent provisions of the bills in question, Congress engaged in “repeal by implication”—that is to say, whether Congress…”
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.