Legal Opinion

United States v. Kalb

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

Decided March 16, 2000No. 99-74 ME, 99-75 ME, 99-76 MEPublishedCited by 2 opinions

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

  1. Ward v. Rock Against RacismSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  2. City of Lakewood v. Plain Dealer Publishing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1988
  3. Cox v. New HampshireSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
  4. Forsyth County v. Nationalist MovementSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
  5. 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

  1. 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
  2. United States v. KalbCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2000

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API