Association for the Protection of the Adirondacks v. MacDonald
New York Court of Appeals
253 N.Y. 234 (1930)
- Written by Colette Routel, JD
Facts
In 1929, the New York Legislature passed a statute authorizing the construction of a bobsled track that was to be used in the 1932 Lake Placid Olympic Games. The statute provided that the bobsled track was to be constructed within the New York State Forest Preserve, a wooded area containing more than 1.9 million acres of land in the Adirondacks. Construction of the track would have required removing approximately 2,500 trees from four and one-half acres. Before construction could commence, the Association for the Protection of the Adirondacks (plaintiff) sued the superintendent of lands and forests and the New York Conservation Commission (collectively, MacDonald) (defendants), arguing that the statute violated Article VII, § 7 of the New York Constitution. That constitutional provision stated that “the forest preserve as now fixed by law, shall be forever kept as wild forest lands. They shall not be leased, sold[,] or exchanged . . . nor shall the timber thereon be sold, removed[,] or destroyed.” MacDonald countered that the purpose of the forest preserve was to maintain the health and happiness of the people and this purpose would be served by offering outdoor sports such as bobsledding. The trial court concluded that the statute was unconstitutional, and MacDonald appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Crane, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
