18 U.S.C. § 41
Hunting, fishing, trapping; disturbance or injury on wildlife refuges
Whoever, except in compliance with rules and regulations promulgated by authority of law, hunts, traps, captures, willfully disturbs or kills any bird, fish, or wild animal of any kind whatever, or takes or destroys the eggs or nest of any such bird or fish, on any lands or waters which are set apart or reserved as sanctuaries, refuges or breeding grounds for such birds, fish, or animals under any law of the United States or willfully injures, molests, or destroys any property of the United States on any such lands or waters, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1966–2024 · leading case: State v. Helker, 545 P.2d 1028 (N.M. Ct. App. 1975).
State v. Helker, 545 P.2d 1028 (N.M. Ct. App. 1975). “The opinion states: 18 U.S.C.A. § 41 (e) (1961) was very similar to Rule 18.”
Rogers v. State, 272 S.E.2d 549 (Ga. Ct. App. 1980). “§ 27-313 appears to have been patterned after Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 4Í (18 USCA § 41) as both have similar wording.”
United States v. Simpson, 32 F. App'x 507 (10th Cir. 2002). “He claims that pretrial assistance was ineffective because (a) counsel failed to adequately research Indian law and federal jurisdiction over tribal members in Indian Country; (b) counsel filed a petition for remission or mitigation of forfeited property instead of filing a…”
State v. Doe, 597 P.2d 1183 (N.M. Ct. App. 1979). “In the appeal, defendant contended that the time limit set in Rule 18(c) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure to file a motion to suppress cannot deprive defendant of his constitutionally protected right to a trial hearing.”
Bennie Joe Hayden v. Warden, Maryland Penitentiary, 363 F.2d 647 (4th Cir. 1966). “While it is true that Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A. § 41 (b), may be interpreted to preclude such seizures, the Supreme Court has not relied on mere supervisory rules to support its decisions on this point, but has instead specifically…”
Mandel v. Hutchinson, 336 F. Supp. 772 (C.D. Cal. 1971). “738 , codified as 18 U.S.C. § 41 (1), as amended 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (1948).”
United States v. McCrickard, 957 F. Supp. 1149 (E.D. Cal. 1996). “See 18 U.S.C. §§ 41 (hunting, fishing, or trapping on wildlife refuges), 42 (importation of injurious animals), 46 (transportation of water hyacinths).”
United States v. Range, 52 F. App'x 727 (6th Cir. 2002). “On March 14, 2002, federal inmate Litho Range filed a motion styled as a “Motion for the Return of Property pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 41 (e)” that was directed to a 1991 civil forfeiture of approximately $3,024.”
Coalition Govt Proc v. Fed Prison Indust (6th Cir. 2004). “its prod ucts, see 18 U.S.C. § 41 24 (d). No. 01-2231 Coalition for Gov’t Procurement, et al.”
Epperson v. Cederborg (E.D. Cal. 2021). “27 4 18 U.S.C. § 41 prohibits hunting, fishing, trapping, or causing a disturbance or injury to birds, fish, or wildlife in any 28 protected areas of the United States.”
Miller El v. State of Ohio (N.D. Ohio 2022). “He references 18 U.S.C §§ 41, 96, 201, 241, 242, 875, 1091, 1201, 1202, 2071, and 2076.”
Young v. Experian Info. Solutions, Inc. (D. Maryland 2022). “Criminal Conspiracy Finally, Young alleges a claim that Experian has engaged in a criminal conspiracy to violate his federal rights, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 41 , by including in his consumer report □ information that Young demanded be removed.”
— 18 U.S.C. § 41(e) — 1 case
United States v. Range, 52 F. App'x 727 (6th Cir. 2002). “On March 14, 2002, federal inmate Litho Range filed a motion styled as a “Motion for the Return of Property pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 41 (e)” that was directed to a 1991 civil forfeiture of approximately $3,024.”
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.