48 U.S.C. § 222
“The Government of Palau may request, from time to time, technical assistance from the Federal agencies and institutions of the Government of the United States, which are authorized to grant such technical assistance in accordance with its law and which shall grant such technical assistance in a manner which gives priority consideration to Palau over other recipients not a part of the United States, its territories or possessions and equivalent consideration to Palau with respect to other states in Free Association with the United States.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases, 1932–1987 · leading case: Mullaney v. Anderson, 342 U.S. 415 (1952).
Mullaney v. Anderson, 342 U.S. 415 (1952). “464 , as amended, 48 U. S. C. § 222 . But see 43 Stat. 464 , 467, 48 U.”
Constantine v. State, 739 P.2d 188 (Alaska Ct. App. 1987). “See 48 U.S.C. § 222 (1952). See also § 39-2-10 ACLA (1949) (codifying federal law).”
Anderson v. Mullaney, Comm'r of Taxation of Territory of Alaska, 191 F.2d 123 (9th Cir. 1951). “of Commerce shall be of general application within the particular area to which it applies, and that no exclusive or several right of fishery shall be granted therein, nor shall any citizen of the United States be denied the right to take, prepare, cure, or preserve fish or…”
Hotch v. United States, 208 F.2d 244 (9th Cir. 1954). “See Title 48 U.S.C.A. §§ 222 and 226. . See Sonnenborg v.”
Thomas B. Rustad, Harvey R. Wyborny, Homer C. Skelley, Charles Diven & James Johnson v. United States, 258 F.2d 563 (9th Cir. 1958). “The Captain and four members of the crew (appellants herein) were arrested, and charged with a violation of 48 U.S.C.A. § 222 , 1 which makes violations of regulations issued by the Secretary of Interior under the authority of 48 U.”
P. E. Harris & Co. v. Mullaney, 87 F. Supp. 248 (D. Alaska 1949). “752 , 48 U.S.C.A. § 222 ; Section 3 of the Organic Act, 37 Stat.”
Hynes v. Grimes Packing Co., 165 F.2d 323 (9th Cir. 1947). “) 48 U.S.C.A. § 222 . Whether prior to 1924 citizenship had been conferred on the Alaska Indians and Eskimo who came into the United States not by conquest but by acquisition under the Russian treaty, they clearly were recognized as citizens by the Act of June 2, 1924, 43 Stat.”
Anderson v. Smith, 71 F.2d 493 (9th Cir. 1934). “464 , § 1 [48 U.S. C.A. § 222]), it was made unlawful to fish during the time when or at a place where fishing was prohibited by the Secretary of Commerce.”
Territory of Alaska v. Arctic Maid, 140 F. Supp. 190 (D. Alaska 1956). “(3) That the provisions of Chapter 97 abridge, impair, and deny to the defendants the right to take or preserve fish in the waters of the Territory, in violation of the White Act, 48 U.S.C.A. § 222 , as amended, and Section 3 of the Organic Act.”
Grimes Packing Co. v. Hynes, 67 F. Supp. 43 (D. Alaska 1946). “464 , 48 U.S. C.A. § 222, following authority to the Secretary of the Interior to create fishing areas and make rules and regulations therefor is found this limitation, to wit: “ * * * Provided, That every such regulation made by the Secretary of Interior shall be of general…”
Freeman v. Smith, 62 F.2d 291 (9th Cir. 1932). “This decision was based upon the proviso contained in section 1 of the act ( 48 U.S.C.A. § 222 ) which is as follows: “Provided, That every such regulation made by the Secretary of Commerce shall be of general application within the particular area to which it applies, and that…”
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.