43 U.S.C. § 932

Repealed. Pub. L. 94–579, title VII, § 706(a), Oct. 21, 1976, 90 Stat. 2793

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

[repealed]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 176 cases (24 in the last 5 years), 1929–2025 · leading case: State v. Alaska Land Title Ass'n, 667 P.2d 714 (Alaska 1983).
State v. Alaska Land Title Ass'n, 667 P.2d 714 (Alaska 1983). · cites it 12× “In territorial days road easements were created across public land under 43 U.S.C. § 932 , repealed by Pub.L. No. 94-579, Title VII, § 706(a) (1976), a statute remarkable for its brevity, which provided: The right-of-way for the construction of highways over public lands, not…”
Girves v. Kenai Peninsula Borough, 536 P.2d 1221 (Alaska 1975). · cites it 13× “11 The borough claims a right-of-way in reliance upon 43 U.S.C. § 932 (1964). 12 That statute provides: “The right of way for the construction of highways over public lands, not reserved for public uses, is hereby granted.”
Garfield Cnty. v. United States, 2017 UT 41 (Utah 2017). · cites it 4× “2477 granted title to rights of way by operation of law—no suit or other action was required to establish title—a claimant can only protect its title to the right of way by filing suit against the United States under the federal Quiet Title Act, 28…”
S. Utah Wilderness All. v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 425 F.3d 735 (10th Cir. 2005). · cites it 2× “251 , 253, codified at 43 U.S.C. § 932 , repealed by Federal Land Policy Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), Pub.”
The Wilderness Soc'y v. Rogers C. B. Morton, Sec'y of the Interior, 479 F.2d 842 (D.C. Cir. 1973). · cites it 4× “The highway right-of-way, they argue, is authorized by 43 U.S.C. § 932 (1970) which provides very simply: “The right of way for the construction of highways over public lands, not reserved for public uses, is hereby granted.”
United States v. Garfield Cnty., 122 F. Supp. 2d 1201 (D. Utah 2000). · cites it 6× “Garfield County asserts a right-of-way pursuant to § 2477 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, 43 U.S.C. § 932 (repealed 1976), 4 along the entire 66-mile length of the Boulder-to-Bullfrog Road, including the Burr Trail, 5 as well as the right to construct and maintain…”
Carey Mills v. United States, 742 F.3d 400 (9th Cir. 2014). · cites it 2× “o Mills, “the only economically feasible and environmentally] *403 friendly transportation route” to access these claims is over the Fortymile Station-Eagle Trail (the Fortymile Trail or the Trail), a trail that runs from a point approximately eight miles south of Eagle, Alaska…”
Wilkenson v. Dept. of Interior of United States, 634 F. Supp. 1265 (D. Colo. 1986). · cites it 4× “That statute was codified at 43 U.S.C. § 932 , and provided as follows: “The right of way for the construction of highways over public land, not reserved for public uses, is hereby grant *1272 ed.”
Lyon v. Gila River Indian Cmty., 626 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2010). · cites it 2× “2477), 43 U.S.C. § 932 (repealed 1976). Finally, addressing the Community’s assertion of authority to control the zoning of Section 16, the district court held that the issue was not ripe for decision.”
Paul G. Shultz v. Dep't of Army, United States of Am., 10 F.3d 649 (9th Cir. 1993). · cites it 4× “He argues that the district court erred in finding that no rights of way existed within the meaning of 43 U.S.C. § 932 (“RS 2477 rights of way”), 1 or that, if they did exist, his cause of action, nonetheless, was barred under 28 U.”
Dillingham Com. Co. v. City of Dillingham, 705 P.2d 410 (Alaska 1985). · cites it 4× “Judge Ripley entered partial summary judgment in favor of the City in the road dispute, holding that a public road of undetermined width existed on Survey 2541 on two alternative theories: (1) adverse possession, and (2) pursuant to 43 U.S.C. § 932 . The determination of the…”
Kane Cnty. Utah v. Salazar, 562 F.3d 1077 (10th Cir. 2009). · cites it 2× “251 , 253, codified at 43 U.S.C. § 932 , repealed by Federal Land Policy Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), Pub.”
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.