Home/Fourth Circuit/Bailey v. Holland

Bailey v. Holland

126 F.2d 317
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 17, 1942
Docket4884
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 126 F.2d 317 (Bailey v. Holland) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bailey v. Holland, 126 F.2d 317 (4th Cir. 1942).

Opinion

*319 DOBIE, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment entered in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, June 14, 1941, enjoining appellants from enforcing a regulation promulgated by the Secretary of Interior on October 4, 1939, which prohibited the hunting of migratory wild fowl on land and water not owned by the United States but adjacent to the federally owned Back Bay Migratory Waterfowl Refuge in Virginia. The Refuge is an “inviolate sanctuary” for migratory birds, comprising approximately 4,400 acres of islands and shorelands shown on the shaded area on the attached map. It was acquired by the United States through purchase and condemnation proceedings instituted pursuant to the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of February 18, 1929, c. 257, 45 Stat. 1222, 16 U.S.C.A., § 715 et seq.

B. P. Holland, the appellee, claims to be the owner of Landing Cove and Cedar Creek Cove adjacent to, but not a part of, the Back Bay Refuge, (A and B on map). On November 16, 1939, Holland brought this action to enjoin appellants from enforcing the aforementioned regulation which prohibited the hunting of migratory birds on approximately 5,000 acres of land and water adjoining the Refuge (indicated by dotted area on the map). Appellee’s two coves comprise less than 100 acres of this closed area.

In the Migratory Bird Treaty of 1916, 39 Stat. 1702, the United States and Great Britain agreed to take the necessary measures to insure the preservation of migratory birds. A similar convention with Mexico in 1936, 50 Stat. 1311, specifically provided for the “establishment of refuge zones” in which the taking of migratory *320 birds would be prohibited. These treaties have been implemented by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of July 3, 1918, c. 128, 40 Stat. 755, and the amendatory Act of June 20, 1936, c. 634, 49 Stat. 1555, wherein it is provided, 16 U.S.C.A. §§ 703 and 704:

*319

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Fund for Animals v. Norton
365 F. Supp. 2d 394 (S.D. New York, 2005)
United States v. Dion
762 F.2d 674 (Eighth Circuit, 1985)
United States v. Dwight Dion, Sr., United States of America v. Asa Primeaux, Sr., United States of America v. Dwight Dion, Sr., United States of America v. Lyle Dion, United States of America v. Terry Fool Bull
762 F.2d 674 (Eighth Circuit, 1985)
United States v. State of North Dakota
650 F.2d 911 (Eighth Circuit, 1981)
United States v. Chartered Bus Service, Inc.
329 F. Supp. 1073 (E.D. Virginia, 1971)
Feliciano v. United States
297 F. Supp. 1356 (D. Puerto Rico, 1969)
The Swan Lake Hunting Club and the State of Mississippi v. United States
381 F.2d 238 (Fifth Circuit, 1967)
United States v. Martin
140 F. Supp. 42 (M.D. North Carolina, 1956)
Bishop v. United States
126 F. Supp. 449 (Court of Claims, 1954)
Perko v. United States
204 F.2d 446 (Eighth Circuit, 1953)
Lansden v. Hart, United States Attorney
180 F.2d 679 (Seventh Circuit, 1950)
Lansden v. Hart
168 F.2d 409 (Seventh Circuit, 1948)
United States v. Travis
66 F. Supp. 413 (W.D. Kentucky, 1946)
Morgan v. Social Security Board
45 F. Supp. 349 (M.D. Pennsylvania, 1942)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
126 F.2d 317, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bailey-v-holland-ca4-1942.