U.S. Code » Title 43 » Chapter CHAPTER 28— MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS RELATING TO PUBLIC LANDS › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER V— OREGON AND CALIFORNIA RAILROAD AND COOS BAY WAGON ROAD GRANT LANDS

43 U.S.C. § 1181a

Transferred

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 43 CasesGoogle Scholar

[transferred]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 33 cases, 1954–2019 · leading case: Gregory Lumber Co. v. United States, 9 Cl. Ct. 503 (Ct. Cl. 1986).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Gregory Lumber Co. v. United States, 9 Cl. Ct. 503 (Ct. Cl. 1986). · cites it 11× “By this opinion, inter alia, we grant in part the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, treated in effect as a motion to dismiss, and dismiss plaintiff’s violation of statute claim (43 U.S.C. § 1181a) on jurisdictional grounds; deny defendant’s motion relating to its…”
Carpenters Indus. Council v. Ryan Zinke, 854 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2017). “See Oregon and California Railroad and Coos Bay Wagon Road Grant Lands Act of 1937, 43 U.S.C. § 1181a et seq.) Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl, at 7 (April 13,…”
Seattle Audubon Soc'y v. Lyons, 871 F. Supp. 1291 (W.D. Wash. 1994). · cites it 3× “” 43 U.S.C. § 1181a. FLPMA, adopted later, declares as policy that the BLM lands shall be managed “on the basis of multiple use and sustained yield unless otherwise specified by law,” and “in a manner that will protect the quality of scientific, scenic, historical, ecological,…”
Portland Audubon Soc'y v. Lujan, 795 F. Supp. 1489 (D. Or. 1992). · cites it 4× “; the Oregon & California Lands Act (0 & C Act), 43 U.S.C. § 1181a et seq.; the Federal Lands Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), 43 U.”
Robertson v. Seattle Audubon Soc'y, 503 U.S. 429 (1992). “Also in 1987, respondent Portland Audubon Society (among others) filed suit in the District Court for the District of Oregon, challenging certain proposed harvesting under- four federal statutes: MBTA; NEPA; the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), 90 Stat.”
United States v. Weyerhaeuser Co., a Washington Corp., & Crown Zellerbach Corp., a Nevada Corp., 538 F.2d 1363 (9th Cir. 1976). · cites it 3× “874 (codified as 43 U.S.C. § 1181a). In order to protect water *1365 sheds and maintain economic stability in the area, long-term federal timber yields' were guaranteed by limiting the maximum harvest to the volume of new timber growth.”
Swanson Grp. Mfg. LLC v. Salazar, 951 F. Supp. 2d 75 (D.D.C. 2013). · cites it 3× “The first statute is the Oregon and California Lands Act of 1937 (“O & C Act”), 43 U.S.C. § 1181a. The O & C Act was enacted in 1937 to regulate timber production on federal lands in western Oregon, including the Medford and Roseburg districts.”
Swanson Grp. Mfg. LLC v. Jewell, 195 F. Supp. 3d 66 (D.D.C. 2016). “Plaintiffs here seek declaratory and injunctive relief from injuries resulting from alleged violations of the Oregon and California Railroad and Coos Way Wagon Road Grant Lands Act of 1937 (“0 & C Act”), 43 U.S.C § 1181a, and the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.”
Headwaters, Inc. v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 914 F.2d 1174 (9th Cir. 1990). · cites it 3× “VI Headwaters also contends that the BLM has misinterpreted the Oregon and California Sustained Yield (or McNary) Act, 43 U.S.C. § 1181a, et seq. (0 & C Act). Portions of the Wilcox Peak sale, as former Oregon and California Railroad Company lands, are governed by the provisions…”
Gregory Lumber Co. v. United States, 11 Cl. Ct. 489 (Ct. Cl. 1986). · cites it 2× “Specifically, the January 31, 1986 opinion dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, without prejudice, plaintiffs cause of action based on violation of 43 U.S.C. § 1181a (1982), and plaintiffs road design offset claims in dockets 578-80C and 146-81C.”
Douglas Timber Operators, Inc. v. Salazar, 774 F. Supp. 2d 245 (D.D.C. 2011). “See 43 U.S.C. § 1181a. The Act directs an “average annual cut [to] not exceed one-half billion feet board measure,” an amount that “shall be sold annually, or so much thereof as can be sold at reasonable prices on a normal market.”
Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr. v. Gerritsma, 962 F. Supp. 2d 1230 (D. Or. 2013). “Plaintiffs acknowledge that the Project area has been “drastically degraded by human manipulation of the environment,” but contend the area “still retains significant conservation values.” Pis.’ Reply at 1.”
Show all 33 citing cases →
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.