43 U.S.C. § 315e
Rights of way; development of mineral resources
Nothing contained in this subchapter shall restrict the acquisition, granting or use of permits or rights of way within grazing districts under existing law; or ingress or egress over the public lands in such districts for all proper and lawful purposes; and nothing contained in this subchapter shall restrict prospecting, locating, developing, mining, entering, leasing, or patenting the mineral resources of such districts under law applicable thereto.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases, 1965–1996 · leading case: United States ex rel. Bergen v. Lawrence, 848 F.2d 1502 (10th Cir. 1988).
United States ex rel. Bergen v. Lawrence, 848 F.2d 1502 (10th Cir. 1988). “” 43 U.S.C. § 315e. The district court sought to read the provisions of the UIA and Taylor Grazing Act together “ ‘to give effect to each .”
Sierra Club v. Hodel, 675 F. Supp. 594 (D. Utah 1987). “” 43 U.S.C. § 315e. Humboldt County v. United States, 684 F.”
Sierra Club v. Hodel, 848 F.2d 1068 (10th Cir. 1988). “§ 2477 right-of-way and that section 6 of the 1934 Act, 43 U.S.C. § 315e, preserved existing rights-of-way.”
Pub. Lands Council v. United States Dep't of the Interior Sec'y, 929 F. Supp. 1436 (D. Wyo. 1996). “43 U.S.C. § 315e. If a permittee receives a grazing permit to use land where a prior occupant has constructed a range improvement, the new permittee cannot use the improvement unless he compensates the pri- or occupant for the reasonable value of the improvement.”
S. Jack Hinton v. Stewart L. Udall, Individually & as Sec'y of the Interior, 364 F.2d 676 (D.C. Cir. 1966). “The interests of those appellants who hold Taylor Act grazing per *679 mits or leases were expressly made subordinate to mineral interests by Section 6 of the Taylor Act, 43 U.S.C. § 315e. None of the other appellants has brought forth evidence that the Secretary intends to…”
Bowman v. Udall, 243 F. Supp. 672 (D.D.C. 1965). “Moreover, these lands within the Mineral Strip included both in and outside of Grazing District 4 are administered for grazing purposes under the condition “that the right, title, and interest of the Indians in and to these lands shall in no way be jeopardized.” Therefore, the…”
United States Ex Rel. Bergen v. Lawrence, 620 F. Supp. 1414 (D. Wyo. 1985). “43 U.S.C. § 315e (1982). If the Grazing Act repealed the UIA, the Government would be unable to achieve this purpose of the law, because it would have no authorization to prevent unlawful enclosures erected on private lands.”
Humboldt Cnty. v. United States, 684 F.2d 1276 (9th Cir. 1982). “” 43 U.S.C. § 315e. There are no cases interpreting this subsection of the Act.”
Pankey Land & Cattle Co. v. Hardin, 427 F.2d 43 (10th Cir. 1970). “The difference between the pasture fees on private lands as compared with public lands was used by the survey as a comparison by which fee increases were justified. The foregoing element of the survey is attacked because the estimate of costs on public pastures does not include…”
Fallini v. United States, 31 Fed. Cl. 53 (Fed. Cl. 1994). “All of their Section 4 range improvement permits (43 U.S.C. § 315e) specifically state that “[a]ny public lands or impounded waters will be available to wildlife use and open to the public for hunting and fishing in accordance with State regulations” and “also be open for other…”
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.