Allard Legal Citation

The Eagle Protection Act makes it illegal to “take, possess, sell, sell, trade, sell, sell, buy or exchange, transport, export or import” bald eagles or any part thereof, provided that the prohibition does not apply to the “possession or transport” of such eagles or parts thereof taken before the day on which the Act comes into force. Similarly, the Migratory Birds Contracts Act prohibits the engaging in such activities with respect to migratory birds and their parts, unless authorized by regulations made under the Act. The complaining Secretary of the Interior issued regulations prohibiting trade in bird parts that were legally killed before they were protected by those laws. After two of the appellants who sold “pre-existing” Indian artifacts, some of which were made of currently protected bird feathers, were prosecuted for violating both laws, the appellants, who are engaged in the trade in these artifacts, filed an action in district court for a statement and injunction, asserting that the laws do not prohibit the sale of artifacts to appellants, provided that the various parts of birds were acquired before the laws came into force. and that if laws and regulations apply to these goods, they violate the Fifth Amendment. The District Court upheld the requested appeal and ruled that the laws should be interpreted as not applying to existing and legally acquired bird parts and that, therefore, the provisions were void as unauthorized extensions of the laws and violated the plaintiffs` property rights in the Fifth Amendment. This is a work in progress. I will add types of quotes when I need them. At the moment, it only works for legal affairs, laws and books. My Python preprocessor for notes per paragraph is a quick hack. I want it to be a real Pandoc filter and I want to rewrite it in Haskell or Racket. Print: CED (West 4th), vol.

49, title 139 in section 460. This quotation refers to paragraph 460 under the theme of restitution (title 139), which is found in volume 49 of the sentence. Fortunately, all of this can be automated. LaTex and BibTex have been doing this for decades for more standard citation formats. And these solutions are certainly sufficient for legal journal articles with citations presented in standard footnotes. But I found nothing appropriate to write a fact in plain text that can then be converted into a well-defined PDF that meets the formatting requirements of UBC or the British Columbia Court of Appeal. Many errors can creep in when you try to manually organize citations, insert pinpoints, manage backlinks, and create authority tables. An accurate legal citation performs two main functions: I want to write as close to the plain text as possible, and I don`t want to think about formatting or formatting quotes as I write. These are some tools I try to use to get there. In this example, it is not necessary to specify the HLP-228 designation because all the information is included in the citation and it is too cryptic for anyone who does not know Halsbury. A three-judge tribunal under 28 U.S.C. § 2282 (1970 ed.) [Footnote 4], held that the laws should be interpreted as “not applicable to pre-existing and legally acquired bird parts or products made from them” because of “serious doubts as to whether these two acts would be constitutional if interpreted as applicable to bird products before the law.” App.

to Juris.Statement 13a-14a. As a result, the court ruled that “any sale, purchase or exchange of these [migratory] birds or their illegally caught eggs, live or dead, and any sale, purchase or exchange of the products of these birds or their parts.” be prohibited. Combining the information from the Chicago Manual of Style with this online guide should meet all of your legal citation requirements. If you need additional guidance, see below for a selective list of other sources. For example, in the factual example, I found a reference that was not included in the table of authorities, inconsistent use of hyphens, dashes and dashes, inconsistent citation layout, and typos in backlinks. Related laws can sometimes shed light on previous adoptions. See United States v. Aluminum Co. of America, 148 F.2d 416, 429 (CA2 1945) (L. Hand, J.). Other conservation laws passed by Congress have used the law enforcement technique of prohibiting the sale of protected wildlife, regardless of the legality of the removal. The Eagle Protection Act is a notable example.

The new Endangered Species Act of 1973, as originally formulated, prohibited the sale of products or parts of endangered species, with no exception for products that were kept legal for commercial purposes at the time the law was passed. [Footnote 17] See 16 U.S.C. § 1538; United States v. Kepler, 531 F.2d 798 (CA6 1976); Delbay Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Department of Commerce, 409 F. Supp. 637, 641-642, 644 (DC 1976); see also H.R.Rep. No.

94-823, pp. 3-4 (1976) (discussion of an amendment to the Endangered Species Act). And while Congress intended to exempt legally removed sections from retroactive application of legal prohibitions, it was careful to do so explicitly, see 16 U.S.C. § 1372 (Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972); 16 Section 153(b) of the United States of America (Endangered Species Act 1973), where he specifically amended the Act to that effect, see 90 Stat. 911, Amendment of 16 U.S.C. § 1539 (Endangered Species Act); 92 Stat. 3760 amending 16 U.S.C. Sections 1538 and 1539 (Endangered Species Act). In contrast, Congress has never established a pre-existing exemption for artifacts from the Migratory Birds Treaty Act, although it has amended the law several times.

[Footnote 18] Birds, unless the law provides otherwise. If Congress had assumed that legally removed birds could be sold automatically under the law, it would have been unnecessary to specify in Section 711 that it is permissible in certain circumstances to sell wild birds that have been legally raised on farms and preserves. [Footnote 14] Moreover, Congress could not help but know that a traditional legislative tool to enforce conservation policy was a blanket ban on the sale of wildlife, regardless of the legality of the removal. At that time, for example, a number of states prohibited or simply limited the possession or sale of wildlife during seasons closed to hunting. See New York ex rel. Silz v. Hesterberg, supra, at p. 211 U. P.

40. The Canadian Migratory Birds Treaty Implementation Act was also before Congress [footnote 15], and that Act itself contained a provision prohibiting the purchase, sale or possession of parts of protected birds “during the period in which the capture, killing or taking of such a bird, nest or egg is prohibited by law”, 55 Cong.Rec. 5412 (1917).