16 U.S.C. § 79a
Establishment; statement of purposes
In order to preserve significant examples of the primeval coastal redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) forests and the streams and seashores with which they are associated for purposes of public inspiration, enjoyment, and scientific study, there is hereby established a Redwood National Park in Del Norte and Humboldt Counties, California.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases, 1962–1982 · leading case: Miller v. United States, 223 Ct. Cl. 352 (Ct. Cl. 1980).
Miller v. United States, 223 Ct. Cl. 352 (Ct. Cl. 1980). “931 , 16 U.S.C. § 79a etseq. (1976). Defendant has already paid plaintiffs $11,687,955, plus simple interest thereon at the rate of 6 percent per annum, to compensate them for the taking of their entire property and to stop the running of interest on the amount paid.”
Sierra Club v. Dep't of the Interior, 398 F. Supp. 284 (N.D. Cal. 1975). “” 16 U.S.C. § 79a. The Act authorized acquisition of not more than 58,000 acres of previously privately owned land for which the United States was to pay just compensation, 16 U.”
Sierra Club v. Dep't of the Interior, 424 F. Supp. 172 (N.D. Cal. 1976). “, and by the Redwood National Park Act, 16 U.S.C. § 79a et seq., for the protection of that Park, 398 F.”
Bayou Des Familles Dev. Corp. v. United States Corp., 541 F. Supp. 1025 (E.D. La. 1982). “95-250, 16 U.S.C. § 79a et seq. [Redwoods National Park]; P.”
Sierra Club v. Dep't of Interior, 376 F. Supp. 90 (N.D. Cal. 1974). “§ 1 (hereinafter referred to as the National Park System Act) and 16 U.S.C. § 79a et seq., particularly §§ 79b(a), 79c(e), 79c(d)) (hereinafter referred to as the Redwood National Park Act) contends that defendants have a judicially-enforceable duty to exercise certain powers…”
Swinomish Tribal Cmty. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 627 F.2d 499 (D.C. Cir. 1980). “1063 , as amended, now Part I of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 79a, et seq. as amended. . The Commission specifically found: “We therefore find that there is a regional need for High Ross power and a need for the power on the system of the City of Seattle.”
Sw. Elec. Power Co. v. Fed. Power Comm'n, 304 F.2d 29 (5th Cir. 1962). “§ 1 of the Act, (now found in Title 16 U.S.C.A. § 79a) enumerated certain abuses which were proposed to be eliminated.”
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.