United States v. Kalb
District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
COHILL, Senior District Judge.
Introduction
The three defendants above-named were each charged by Information with a misdemeanor for violation of 36 C.F.R. § 261.10(k): “Use or occupancy of National Forest lands without authorization when such authorization is required.” 1
The regulations considered here govern the noncommercial assembly of 75 or more persons in a national forest. The defendants argue that the regulations are either unconstitutional or simply don’t apply to them as individuals.
We conducted a two day bench trial, and directed the parties to file proposed Findings of Fact…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Ward v. Rock Against RacismSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- City of Lakewood v. Plain Dealer Publishing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Cox v. New HampshireSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Forsyth County v. Nationalist MovementSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- United States v. Michael D. Linick Henry G. Bailey, IIICourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1999
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- United States v. Joan H. Kalb, in No. 00-1733 United States of America v. Garrick M. Beck, in No. 00-1734 United States v. Stephen M. Sedlacko, in No. 00-1746Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2000
- United States v. KalbCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2000