18 U.S.C. § 1854
Trees boxed for pitch or turpentine
Whoever cuts, chips, chops, or boxes any tree upon any lands belonging to the United States, or upon any lands covered by or embraced in any unperfected settlement, application, filing, entry, selection, or location, made under any law of the United States, for the purpose of obtaining from such tree any pitch, turpentine, or other substance; or
Whoever buys, trades for, or in any manner acquires any pitch, turpentine, or other substance, or any article or commodity made from any such pitch, turpentine, or other substance, with knowledge that the same has been so unlawfully obtained—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5
cases, 1983–2010 · leading case: Rice v. Rehner
Rice v. Rehner (1983)
“"The 1834 Act also prohibited selling (or otherwise conveying) liquor to an Indian in Indian country; the 1862 replacement of this statute broadened the sale prohibition to include all Indians under the superintendence of a federal agent, even outside Indian country.”
United States v. Lewis (1986)
“Having found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that each of the charged defendants knowingly and willfully held John Yarbough to involuntary servitude in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 1854 arid § 2, I find defendants William A.”
Herrera v. Singh (2000)
“18 U.S.C. § 1854 (c)(1). The maximum possible total award would be $45,000 in AWPA damages.”
Associated Fisheries of Maine, Inc. v. Evans (2004)
“Although the Secretary only “partially approved” Amendment 13 under 18 U.S.C. § 1854 (a)(3), he explicitly approved the Council’s method of calculating the DAS baseline.”
David v. Signal International, L.L.C. (2010)
“Background Plaintiffs filed their complaint on behalf of a putative class that consists of over 500 Indian men whom defendants allegedly trafficked into the United States through the federal government’s H-2B guestworker program in violation of putative class plaintiffs’ rights…”
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.