43 U.S.C. § 315q

Withdrawal of lands for war or national defense purposes; payment for cancellation of permits or licenses

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

Whenever use for war or national defense purposes of the public domain or other property owned by or under the control of the United States prevents its use for grazing, persons holding grazing permits or licenses and persons whose grazing permits or licenses have been or will be canceled because of such use shall be paid out of the funds appropriated or allocated for such project such amounts as the head of the department or agency so using the lands shall determine to be fair and reasonable for the losses suffered by such persons as a result of the use of such lands for war or national defense purposes. Such payments shall be deemed payment in full for such losses. Nothing contained in this section shall be construed to create any liability not now existing against the United States.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases, 1944–1988 · leading case: White Sands Ranchers v. United States, 16 Cl. Ct. 13 (Ct. Cl. 1988).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

White Sands Ranchers v. United States, 16 Cl. Ct. 13 (Ct. Cl. 1988). · cites it 8× “The second argument advanced by the Ranchers before the Hearing Officer was that the Government’s failure to utilize 43 U.S.C. § 315q to compensate for the termination of federal grazing privileges, which occurred in conjunction with the fee condemnation proceedings, was an…”

Osborne v. United States, 145 F.2d 892 (9th Cir. 1944). · cites it 3× “654 , 43 U.S.C.A. § 315q. The trial court took this view of the problem.”

White Sands Ranchers v. United States, 14 Cl. Ct. 559 (Ct. Cl. 1988). · cites it 2× “654 (1942)), now codified as 43 U.S.C. § 315q (1982). (The statute is examined in more detail at a later point in this opinion.”

W. Dalton Larue, Sr. v. Stewart L. Udall, Individually & as Sec'y of the Interior, & Northamerican Aviation, Inc., 324 F.2d 428 (D.C. Cir. 1963). “654 • (1942), as amended, 43 U.S.C. § 315q (1958). . See Clawson & Held 335.”

Don Irving Porter, of the Est. of John Prather, Deceased v. Honorable Stanley R. Resor, Sec'y of the Dep't of the Army, 415 F.2d 764 (10th Cir. 1969). · cites it 4× “This action was commenced in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico following an administrative decision by the Secretary of the Department of the Army that the appellant executor was not entitled to compensation under the Taylor Grazing Act (43 U.S.C. §…”

Mollohan v. Gray, 413 F.2d 349 (9th Cir. 1969). “We do not decide whether appellants have a claim against the Army for compensation under 43 U.S.C. § 315q. That section apparently commits the matter of compensation to agency discretion,”

Diz Livestock Co., 210 Ct. Cl. 708 (Ct. Cl. 1976). · cites it 3× “Plaintiffs also argue that they are entitled to compensation under 43 U.S.C. § 315q, due to defendant’s cancellation of Grazing Act privileges.”

McDonald v. McDonald, 302 P.2d 726 (N.M. 1956). · cites it 3× “On July 9, 1942, Congress amended the Taylor Grazing Act (by passing Statute, 43 U.S.C.A. § 315q, providing for the withdrawal of public domain for war purposes and authorizing the payment to- persons holding grazing permits or'licenses of such amounts for cancellation of…”

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.