Legal Opinion

United States v. Romano

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

Decided March 10, 1998No. 97-1630PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

STAHL, Circuit Judge.

The felony proviso of the Lacey Act, 16 U.S.C. § 3373(d)(1), outlaws the purchase of wildlife (of a specified market value) the purchaser knows were taken—i.e., captured, killed, or collected—in violation of state law. This appeal presents occasion for us to decide an issue of apparent first impression: whether the same proviso also criminalizes the purchase of lawful guiding and outfitting services to facilitate a taking of wildlife (again, of a specified market value) that, if effectuated, would be in violation of state law. We conclude that the language of 16 U.S.C. §…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. United States v. OlanoSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
  2. Johnson v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
  3. Rutledge v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
  4. Reno v. KoraySupreme Court of the United States · 1995
  5. United States v. Sylvia Vasquez-Chan, United States of America v. Julia Gaxiola-CastilloCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1992

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. United States v. Sotomayor-VazquezCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2001
  2. United States v. James M. FejesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000
  3. United States v. Sepúlveda-HernándezCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2014
  4. United States v. Sepulveda-HernandezCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2014
  5. United States v. Joey SantillanCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2001

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API