U.S. Code » Title 16 » Chapter CHAPTER 7— PROTECTION OF MIGRATORY GAME AND INSECTIVOROUS BIRDS › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER IV— HUNTING AND CONSERVATION STAMP TAX

16 U.S.C. § 718

Repealed. Pub. L. 109–266, § 10(h), Aug. 3, 2006, 120 Stat. 677

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

[repealed]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1967–1996 · leading case: North Dakota v. United States, 460 U.S. 300 (1983).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
North Dakota v. United States, 460 U.S. 300 (1983). · cites it 2× “451 , 16 U. S. C. § 718 et seq., was enacted. Section 1 of the Stamp Act, 16 U.”
Commonwealth v. Neitzel, 678 A.2d 369 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1996). · cites it 2× “) or Federal Duck Stamp Act ( 16 U.S.C. § 718 et seq.) are hereby made a part of this title.”
United States v. State of North Dakota, 650 F.2d 911 (8th Cir. 1981). “5 16 U.S.C. § 718 et seq. The Stamp Act provides that anyone hunting migratory birds is required to purchase a hunting stamp.”
United States v. Kerry Johansen, Michael Johansen, 93 F.3d 459 (8th Cir. 1996). “451 (1934) (codified as 16 U.S.C. § 718 et seq. (1994)). Subsequently, the conservation effort’s strategy shifted away from the creation of large bird sanctuaries toward the preservation of wetlands on private property.”
The Swan Lake Hunting Club & the State of Mississippi v. United States, 381 F.2d 238 (5th Cir. 1967). “” The Act (presently 16 U.S. C.A. § 718 et seq.) required the purchase of a hunting stamp by any person wishing to hunt migratory waterfowl; the proceeds from the stamps were to be paid into the Treasury but earmarked in a special fund, the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund, to…”
United States v. Wylder, 590 F. Supp. 926 (D. Or. 1984). · cites it 2× “Defendant appeals from a decision of the Honorable Edward Leavy, United States Magistrate, convicting him of violating 16 U.S.C. § 718 (a) (1982). I AFFIRM Magistrate Leavy’s decision.”
United States v. Kerry Johansen (8th Cir. 1996). “451 (1934) (codified as 16 U.S.C. § 718 et seq. (1994)). Subsequently, the conservation effort's strategy shifted away from 1 Much of the State of North Dakota, as well as parts of the Canadian Provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta, constitutes what marine biologists…”
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.