43 U.S.C. § 1181
Omitted
[omitted]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases, 1957–2016 · leading case: Swanson Grp. Mfg. LLC v. Jewell, 195 F. Supp. 3d 66 (D.D.C. 2016).
Swanson Grp. Mfg. LLC v. Jewell, 195 F. Supp. 3d 66 (D.D.C. 2016). “” 43 U.S.C. § 1181 (a). There is no exception allowing the BLM to supplement the shortage, with timber from non-ASQ land.”
Gregory Lumber Co. v. United States, 9 Cl. Ct. 503 (Ct. Cl. 1986). “While plaintiff concedes that one purpose of the statute is to protect the government’s interest in receiving a fair price, plaintiff also contends that “it is equally true that it [ 43 U.S.C. § 1181 (a)] protects the local industries who buy the timber from being forced to buy…”
Rodger L. O'neal, Theresa O'Neal v. United States, 814 F.2d 1285 (9th Cir. 1987). “2) The Oregon Recreational Use Statute is preempted by the revestiture Statute providing for the revesting in the United States of lands previously granted to the Oregon and California Railroad, 43 U.S.C. § 1181 , which specifies that the lands revested shall be used for…”
Portland Audubon Soc'y v. Lujan, 712 F. Supp. 1456 (D. Or. 1989). “On October 19, 1987, the Portland Audubon Society filed this action alleging that the decision not to prepare a supplemental Environmental Impact Statement is in violation of NEPA, the Oregon & California Lands Act (OCLA), 43 U.S.C. § 1181 , the Federal Lands Policy and…”
Portland Audubon Soc'y v. Lujan, 884 F.2d 1233 (9th Cir. 1989). “Meanwhile, on October 19, 1987, plaintiffs had filed this action alleging violations of NEPA, the Oregon & California Lands Act (OCLA), 43 U.S.C. § 1181 , the Federal Lands Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), 43 U.”
West Virginia Div. of the Izaak Walton League of Am., Inc. v. Earl L. Butz, Sec'y of Agric. of the United States, 522 F.2d 945 (4th Cir. 1975). “The Oregon and California Act of 1937, 43 U.S.C. § 1181 et seq. This legislation dealt specifically with forest property reacquired from the Oregon and California Railroad and was not a part of the National Forest System.”
Douglas Cnty. v. Lujan, 810 F. Supp. 1470 (D. Or. 1992). “1489 , in which the BLM argued it was exempt from NEPA, because (1) the requested relief under the NEPA claim conflicted with the 0 & C Act, 43 U.S.C. § 1181 et seq.; and, (2) it should be excused from complying with NEPA because the failure to comply would, in effect, have a…”
Portland Audubon Soc'y v. Hodel, 866 F.2d 302 (9th Cir. 1989). “§§ 4321-4347 (1982), the Oregon and California Lands Act, 43 U.S.C. § 1181 (1982), the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, 43 U.”
A. W. Lafferty & Richard L. Merrick v. George M. Humphrey, Sec'y of the Treasury, & Benton Cnty., Corvallis, Oregon, 248 F.2d 82 (D.C. Cir. 1957). “874 , 43 U.S.C.A. § 1181a et seq. 4 . 68 Stat. 270 , 43 U.”
Headwaters, Inc. v. Bureau of Land Mgmt. Dist., 684 F. Supp. 1053 (D. Or. 1988). “BLM manages the lands under the Oregon and California Railroad and Coos Bay Wagon Road Land Grants Act of 1937, 43 U.S.C. § 1181 . 2 . "High intensity" forest lands are "commercial forest lands .”
Seattle Audobon Soc'y v. Robertson, 914 F.2d 1311 (9th Cir. 1990). “BACKGROUND In October 1987, the Portland Audubon Society (“Portland Audubon”) and other environmental organizations filed an action in district court for declaratory and injunctive relief, challenging forest management activities of the Bureau of Land Management, U.”
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.