7 U.S.C. § 426
Transferred
[transferred]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases, 1962–2015 · leading case: State of Wyoming v. United States, 279 F.3d 1214 (10th Cir. 2002).
State of Wyoming v. United States, 279 F.3d 1214 (10th Cir. 2002). “But see 7 U.S.C. § 426 (authorizing the Secretary of the USDA to "determine, demonstrate, and promulgate the best methods of eradication, suppression, or bringing under control on .”
WildEarth Guardians v. United States Dep't of Agric., 795 F.3d 1148 (9th Cir. 2015). “11. APHIS conducts its programs in cooperation with other federal, state, and local agencies, as well as with private organizations and individuals.”
S. Utah Wilderness All. v. Thompson, 811 F. Supp. 635 (D. Utah 1993). “Federal authority for ADM programs emanates from the Animal Damage Control Act of 1931, 7 U.S.C. §§ 426 to 426b (the “ADCA”), which directs the Secretary of Agriculture to “conduct campaigns for the destruction” of animals injurious to agriculture and livestock on the national…”
San Juan Audubon Soc'y v. Veneman, 153 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2001). “(quoting 7 U.S.C. § 426 (c)). As permitted by statute, the Secretary has delegated her authority under 7 U.”
Nat'l Audubon Soc'y, Inc. v. Davis, 307 F.3d 835 (9th Cir. 2002). “Prior to the passage of Proposition 4, federal agencies used leg-hold traps to protect livestock and other property pursuant to the ADCA, 7 U.S.C. §§ 426 -426c. Leghold traps were also used to protect threatened or endangered species — including California clapper rails, western…”
Martarano v. United States, 231 F. Supp. 805 (D. Nev. 1964). “1468 ( 7 U.S.C. § 426 ) authorizing the Secretary to cooperate with States, individuals and public and private agencies, organizations and institutions in campaigns for the destruction or control of predatory or other wild animals, and in 60 Stat.”
Arizona v. Files, 36 F. Supp. 3d 873 (D. Ariz. 2014). “” 7 U.S.C. § 426 . Federal statute further empowers the Secretary to make expenditures, hire staff, and “employ such means as may be necessary to execute the functions imposed upon him by this Act.”
Nat'l Audubon Soc'y v. Davis, 144 F. Supp. 2d 1160 (N.D. Cal. 2000). “Prior to the passage of Proposition 4, leghold traps were used throughout California by the federal agencies to protect livestock and other private property pursuant to the Animal Damage Control Act, 7 U.S.C.A. §§ 426 -426c. Leghold traps were also used to protect threatened or…”
Doe v. Veneman, 230 F. Supp. 2d 739 (W.D. Tex. 2002). “Pursuant to the Animal Damage Control Act (“ADC Act”), 7 U.S.C. §§ 426 and 426b, WS has the authority to assist in solving problems that are created when wildlife causes damage to agricultural, urban, or natural resources.”
Wilderness Soc'y v. Dombeck, 168 F.3d 367 (9th Cir. 1999). “§ 612 (1) (exclusion from the definition of a public building facilities situated “on the public domain (including that reserved for national forests)”); 7 U.S.C. § 426 (authorizing-investigations and experiments to control *374 certain species of wildlife “on the national…”
Molohon v. United States, 206 F. Supp. 388 (D. Mont. 1962). ““The United States shall be liable, respecting the provisions of this title relating to tort claims, in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances, but shall not be liable for interest prior to judgment or for punitive damages.”
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.