Frank v. Cain

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that there was “no due process problem” where defendants “had actual notice that their use of National Forest System lands violated Forest Service regulations”
• holding that “likely to cause a significant surface disturbance” standard not unconstitutionally vague
• explaining that a conviction will not be set aside for vagueness if the defendant had adequate notice because “there is no due process problem”
• finding “no due process problem” where the defendant had actual notice of the proscribed conduct because “the Forest Service explicitly informed him that his residency was not authorized by the mining laws and regulations”
• “[T]he United States Forest Service may regulate residential occupancy of bona fide mining claims within the national forests[.]”
• applying the collateral attack doctrine to APA claims

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).