All inclosures of any public lands in any State or Territory of the United States, heretofore or to be hereafter made, erected, or constructed by any person, party, association, or corporation, to any of which land included within the inclosure the person, party, association, or corporation making or controlling the inclosure had no claim or color of title made or acquired in good faith, or an asserted right thereto by or under claim, made in good faith with a view to entry thereof at the proper land office under the general laws of the United States at the time any such inclosure was or shall be made, are declared to be unlawful, and the maintenance, erection, construction, or control of any such inclosure is forbidden and prohibited; and the assertion of a right to the exclusive use and occupancy of any part of the public lands of the United States in any State or any of the Territories of the United States, without claim, color of title, or asserted right as above specified as to inclosure, is likewise declared unlawful, and prohibited.
Notes of Decisions
United States ex rel. Bergen v. Lawrence, 848 F.2d 1502 (10th Cir. 1988).
· cites it 4× “Taylor Lawrence appeals from a final order of the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming, ordering him to remove from his lands a fence which enclosed public lands contrary to the Unlawful Inclosures of Public Lands Act, 43 U.S.C. §§ 1061 to 1066. See United…”
Leo Sheep Co. v. United States, 440 U.S. 668 (1979).
· cites it 2× “321 , 43 U. S. C. § 1061 . Section 3 further provides: “No person, by force, threats, intimidation, or by any fencing or inclosing, or any other unlawful means, shall prevent or obstruct, or shall combine and confederate with others to prevent or obstruct, any person from…”
Iron Bar Holdings v. Cape, 131 F.4th 1153 (10th Cir. 2025).
· cites it 3× “43 U.S.C. § 1061 et seq. In essence, the UIA was designed to harmonize public access to the public domain with adjacent private landholdings.”
Leo Sheep Co. v. United States of Am., 570 F.2d 881 (10th Cir. 1978).
“We find *886 ourselves unable to conclude that such was the intent of Congress. We believe our conclusion that there was such a congressional intent in 1862 finds support in several decisions of the Supreme Court and also by the enactment by Congress in 1885 of the so-called…”
United States Ex Rel. Bergen v. Lawrence, 620 F. Supp. 1414 (D. Wyo. 1985).
“Obstruction of settlement on or transit over public lands. No person, by force, threats, intimidation, or by any fencing or inclosing, or any other unlawful means, shall prevent or obstruct, or shall combine and confederate with others to prevent or obstruct, any person from…”
United States v. 1,960 Acres of Land, 54 F. Supp. 867 (S.D. Cal. 1944).
“321 [ 43 U.S.C.A. § 1061 et seq.].) And in Chapter 1 of Part Three in section 975, which reads as follows: ' “The act of March 2, 1889, providing that all legal services connected with the procurement of title to sites for public buildings shall be rendered by district…”
Bales v. Ruch, 522 F. Supp. 150 (E.D. Cal. 1981).
“The obstruction of the entrance to the land is also claimed to be a violation of 43 U.S.C. § 1061 , the Unlawful Inclosure Act, in light of defendants’ allegation that plaintiffs have acquired their claim in bad faith.”
Crow Tribe of Indians v. Repsis, 866 F. Supp. 520 (D. Wyo. 1994).
“In addition, plaintiffs contend that the State of Wyoming and its agents erected a six mile long elk fence in violation of their treaty rights as well as in violation of 43 U.S.C. §§ 1061 through 1066, popularly known as the “Unlawful Inclosures of Public Lands Act” and seek…”
Bradford v. Danielsen, 11 Alaska 406 (D. Alaska 1947).
“This fence has evidently been built and maintained in violation of the act of February 25, 1885, 43 U.S.C.A. § 1061 , forbidding the fencing of the public domain, Clemmons v.”
Sacra v. Jones, 17 P.2d 552 (N.M. 1932).
“321, 43 USCA § 1061 et seq., declaring it unlawful to inclose public lands, to assert exclusive rights therein, or to obstruct settlement thereon, providing penalties, and directing suits by district attorneys, in federal courts, to enjoin inclosures.”
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.