Nos , IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Nos , IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT"

Transcription

1 Nos , IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT EARTH ISLAND INSTITUTE et al., Plaintiffs/Appellees/Cross- Appellants, v. NANCY RUTHENBECK, District Ranger, Hot Springs Ranger District, Sequoia National Forest, United States Forest Service et al., Defendants/Appellants/Cross-Appellees. ON APPEAL FROM THE UNTIED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA PLAINTIFFS/APPELLEES/CROSS-APPELLANTS PETITION FOR REHEARING AND SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC Submitted November 30, 2006 Matt Kenna Western Environmental Law Center 679 E. 2 nd Ave., Suite 11B Durango, CO (970) mattkenna@gmail.com

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS FED. R. APP. P. 35(b)(1) STATEMENT...1 FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY...2 ARGUMENT I. The Panel Improperly Determined that the Facial Rule Challenges were Unripe for Review...6 A. The Panel s Decision Conflicts with U.S. Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit Precedent...6 B. The Panel s Decision Conflicts with Established Precedent from the Sister Circuits on a Matter of Exceptional Importance, the Reviewability of Nationwide Regulations.10 II. The Panel Should, At a Minimum, Modify Two Aspects of its Opinion...13 A. The Panel Should Vacate the Application of its Judgment as to 36 U.S.C (b)(1) Because the Forest Service Did Not Appeal That Claim so the Court Had No Jurisdiction..13 B. The Opinion should be Amended to Clarify that 36 C.F.R (a) Remains Enjoined...14 CONCLUSION...15 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH TYPE-VOLUME LIMITATION...16 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE...17

3 ADDENDA: Addendum A: Addendum B: Declaration of Jim Bensman, from Federal Appellants Excerpts of Record Opening Brief for the Federal Defendants- Appellants (excerpts) Addendum C: Order, The Wilderness Soc y v. Rey, CV M-DWM (D. Mont. Apr. 3, 2006) (excerpts)

4 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES: Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136 (1967)...4,7,8 Better Gov t Assoc. v. Dept. of State, 780 F.2d 86 (D.C. Cir. 1986)...12 Earth Island Institute v. Pengilly, 376 F. Supp. 2d 994 (E.D. Cal. 2005) n.1,4 Ecology Ctr. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 192 F.3d 922 (9 th Cir. 1990)...9 Erlin v. United States, 364 F.3d 1127 (9 th Cir. 2004)...13 Gardner v. Toilet Goods Ass n, 387 U.S. 167 (1967)...7 Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Int. Union v. Nevada Gaming Comm., 984 F.2d 1507 (9 th Cir. 1993)...8 Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation, 497 U.S. 871 (1990)...8-9,11 n.3 Nat l Assoc. of Home Builders v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 440 F.3d 459 (D.C. Cir. 2006)...11 Nat l Mining Ass'n v. Fowler, 324 F.3d 752 (D.C. Cir.2003)...11 Nat l Park Hospitality Ass n v. Dep t of the Interior, 538 U.S. 803 (2003)...9,11 n.3 Nat l Treasury Employees Union v. Chertoff, 452 F.3d 839 (D.C. Cir. 2006) Nat'l Treasury Employees Union v. Cornelius, 617 F. Supp. 365 (D. D.C.1985)...4 -i-

5 Ohio Forestry Assn., Inc. v. Sierra Club, 523 U.S. 726 (1998) Sullivan v. Zelby, 493 U.S. 521 (1990)...7 The Wilderness Society v. Norton, 434 F.3d 584 (D.C. Cir. 2006)...14 The Wilderness Soc y v. Rey, CV M-DWM (D. Mont. Apr. 3, 2006)...5, Addendum C Toilet Goods Ass n v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 158 (1967)...7 Triple G Landfills Inc. v. Board of Commissioners of Fountain County, Indiana, 977 F.2d 287 (7 th 1992)...12 Western Oil & Gas Assoc. v. EPA, 633 F.2d 803 (9 th Cir. 1980)...8 Whitman v. Am. Trucking Ass ns, Inc., 531 U.S. 457 (2001)...8 Wininger v. S.I. Management LP, 301 F.3d 1115 (9 th Cir. 2002) STATUTES: Pub. L. No , 106 Stat (Oct. 5, 1992), Forest Service Decision Making and Appeals Reform Act ( ARA ), Title III, 322, 106 Stat. at 1419, appended to 16 U.S.C.A passim (c)...15 Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C National Environmental Policy Act ( NEPA, 42 U.S.C et seq...2 n.1,15 -ii-

6 CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS: 36 C.F.R. Part (a) (f) (b)(1) OTHER AUTHORITIES: Fed. R. App. P. 35(b)(1)...1 Circuit Rule 40-1(a) iii-

7 FED. R. APP. P. 35(b)(1) STATEMENT The plaintiffs/appellees/cross-appellants Earth Island Institute et al. (collectively Earth Island ) now petition the panel for rehearing, and suggest that the appeal be reheard en banc, regarding the panel s holding that Earth Island s claims presenting facial challenges to final regulations published in the Code of Federal Regulations were unripe, for the following reasons: A) The panel s holding conflicts with both decisions of the United States Supreme Court and this Court, all holding that facial challenges to regulations are ripe except in unusual circumstances (which are not alleged to be present in this appeal); and B) The panel s holding presents a question of exceptional importance, namely whether final, published regulations may be challenged facially, rather than limited only to as-applied challenges, especially where, as here, the regulations have been applied numerous times and the challenges present purely legal issues requiring no factual development. The panel s holding squarely conflicts with established precedent from the other circuits, especially the D.C. Circuit.

8 FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Earth Island brought a facial challenge to eight regulatory provisions promulgated by the defendants/appellants/cross-appellees United States Forest Service (collectively Forest Service ) in 2003, implementing the Forest Service Decision Making and Appeals Reform Act, Pub. L , Title III, 322, 106 Stat (Oct. 5, 1992) ( ARA ), which regulations are published in 36 C.F.R. Part 215. These challenged regulations limit the type of land management decisions of the Forest Service subject to public notice, comment and administrative appeal. These challenges were raised in a suit which also raised sitespecific claims under the ARA and other statutes regarding a particular timber sale, although those site-specific claims were settled by the time the facial ARA claims were litigated. While one of the challenged provisions, the categorical exclusion provision, was applied in the timber sale, the other regulations were not. 1 However, the other regulations have been applied regularly to the 1. Earth Island s challenges to the eight regulatory provisions were summarized by the district court: (1) the regulations categorically excluding certain decisions from National Environmental Policy Act ( NEPA ) analysis are unlawfully exempted from appeal;(2) the regulation exempting 2

9 public, including to the Earth Island parties. FS Excerpts of Record at (Addendum A- Declaration of Jim Bensman, discussing how his plaintiff group Heartwood has been affected by the implementation of each and every challenged regulation). The district court rejected the Forest Service s argument that the challenges were unripe, finding: Here, there can be little doubt that the eight regulations challenged by Plaintiffs are "final" actions by the Forest Service for purposes of the [Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C ]. The regulations are the Forest Service's definitive position on how to best implement the ARA and have been enforced on numerous occasions. Further, the impact of the regulations on Plaintiffs are sufficiently direct and immediate as to render the issue[s] appropriate for judicial review at this decisions signed by the Secretary and Under Secretary of Agriculture from comment and appeal violates the [ARA]; (3) the ARA does not allow the Forest Service to limit appeal standing to those who have filed "substantive comments;" (4) the "most effective timing" provision for public comment violates the ARA; (5) the ARA does not permit the Forest Service to intentionally refuse to decide an appeal; (6) "emergency situations" may not be defined to include pure economic losses to the government; (7) the ARA does not permit regional foresters to make emergency stay exemption determinations; and (8) the regulations improperly shorten the stay period by five days. Earth Island Institute v. Pengilly, 376 F. Supp. 2d 994, (E.D. Cal. 2005). The first-listed challenge is the categorical exclusion provision. 3

10 stage. Abbott Lab[oratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 152 (1967)]. "There is no reason why the Court must wait until a[n] [organization] member loses his right to appeal before considering the validity of these regulations." Nat'l Treasury Employees Union v. Cornelius, 617 F. Supp. 365, 367 (D.D.C.1985) (finding ripe for decision a challenge to the Office of Personnel Management's rules on appeal procedures). The purpose of the finality requirement would not be served by disallowing a facial challenge in this context. Were the Court to rule that these regulations are not ripe for decision because they are being facially challenged, Plaintiffs could be faced with bringing multiple lawsuits in multiple jurisdictions in order to challenge the regulations as they are applied to specific projects-- and the Forest Service faced with defending against them. This facial challenge promotes judicial economy and is sufficiently particular to avoid judicial foray into the hypothetical. Plaintiffs' challenge to the eight Forest Service regulations implementing the ARA is ripe for decision. Earth Island Institute, supra, 376 F. Supp. 2d at The district court set aside the categorical exclusion rule, as well as three other rules, and affirmed the four other challenged rules. See FS Op. Brf. at (Addendum B). The Forest Service appealed, and Earth Island cross-appealed. On appeal, the panel found that only the challenge to the categorical exclusion rule was ripe, affirmed the district court s vacature of that provision on the merits of the claim, and vacated the district court s ruling on the other three regulations which the district court had set aside. 4

11 Another district court has held, in a case which presents facial challenges to three of the same regulations as are at issue in this appeal, that the challenges were ripe: In this case, those subject to the regulation, i.e., Plaintiffs who make use of the notice and comment and appeals procedures, have found their day-to-day affairs impacted already by the regulation.... Waiting until a particular project has been excluded will not provide the Court with more information about the merits of this claim but will result in increased harm to Plaintiffs. The Wilderness Soc y v. Rey, CV M-DWM (D. Mont. Apr. 3, 2006) at The Forest Service has now filed a petition for rehearing and a suggestion for rehearing en banc on ripeness and standing grounds as to the categorical exclusion rule, and Earth Island now files this cross petition challenging the panel s ripeness decision as to the other regulatory provisions. 2. Relevant excerpts of the opinion are provided at Addendum C; the full opinion is attached to Earth Island s reply brief and is also available on the District of Montana s ECF website. 5

12 ARGUMENT I. The Panel Improperly Determined that the Facial Rule Challenges were Unripe for Review The panel determined that other than the categorical exclusion rule which was utilized by the Forest Service in the challenged timber sale accompanying Earth Island s facial challenges, Earth Island has not shown that the other challenged regulations were applied in the context of the Burnt Ridge Timber Sale or any other specified project, and that therefore challenges to those regulations were not ripe. Op. at 9331 (emphasis added). In so finding, the panel essentially ruled that a facial challenge to final agency regulations published in the Code of Federal Regulations can not be brought. However, this directly contradictions previous decisions of this Court, other Courts of Appeal, and the Supreme Court. Further, this is a matter of exceptional importance. Therefore, rehearing is warranted. A. The Panel s Decision Conflicts with U.S. Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit Precedent The U.S. Supreme Court and this Court have time and time again ruled that facial challenges to final regulations are ripe once those regulations are published in the Code of Federal Regulations, absent 6

13 unusual circumstances (and there has been no allegation that such unusual circumstances are present here). This is true even in the context of pre-enforcement challenges, let alone as here where the dismissed claims have already been enforced countless times. A listing of some representative cases that the panel s decision contradicts follows: Sullivan v. Zelby, 493 U.S. 521, n.18 (1990) ( We fail to see why each [plaintiff] should be compelled to raise a separate, as-applied challenge to the regulations, or why a facial challenge is not a proper response to the systemic [enforcement of the challenged regulations]. ) Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, (1967) (general rule that final agency regulations are ripe for judicial review when issued even in pre-enforcement context; particularly true where, as here, resolution of the regulations validity relies on purely legal issues.). See also Gardner v. Toilet Goods Ass n, 387 U.S. 167 (1967) (companion case finding regulation ripe for review); compare companion case Toilet Goods Ass n v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 158, (1967) (ripeness not found for this particular regulation in this particular context because the regulation there only may under 7

14 certain circumstances have been enforced, requiring post-enforcement review) (emphasis in original). Whitman v. Am. Trucking Ass ns, Inc., 531 U.S. 457, 458 (2001) (where, as here, a party challenges a regulation s facial conformity with its authorizing statute, [t]he question before [the Court] is purely one of statutory interpretation that would not benefit from further factual development of the issues presented. ). Western Oil & Gas Assoc. v. EPA, 633 F.2d 803, (9 th Cir. 1980) (challenge to final regulations is ripe, citing inter alia Abbott Laboratories, supra). Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Int. Union v. Nevada Gaming Comm., 984 F.2d 1507, (9 th Cir. 1993) (facial challenge to final regulations is ripe, citing inter alia Abbott Laboratories, supra). These cases finding challenges to final, published regulations to be ripe must be contrasted with programmatic challenges to large collections of individual agency actions, as in Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation, 497 U.S. 871 (1990) or to programmatic land use plans as in Ohio Forestry Assn., Inc. v. Sierra Club, 523 U.S. 726 (1998), where ripeness was not found. For instance, in Lujan, the Court found that 8

15 [Plaintiffs] challenge the entirety of petitioners' so-called "land withdrawal review program." That is not an "agency action" within the meaning of 702, much less a "final agency action" within the meaning of 704. The term "land withdrawal review program" (which as far as we know is not derived from any authoritative text) does not refer to a single BLM order or regulation, or even to a completed universe of particular BLM orders and regulations. It is simply the name by which petitioners have occasionally referred to the continuing (and thus constantly changing) operations of the BLM in reviewing withdrawal revocation applications and the classifications of public lands and developing land use plans as required by the FLPMA. It is no more an identifiable "agency action"--much less a "final agency action"--than a "weapons procurement program" of the Department of Defense or a "drug interdiction program" of the Drug Enforcement Administration. As the District Court explained, the "land withdrawal review program" extends to, currently at least, "1250 or so individual classification terminations and withdrawal revocations." 497 U.S. at 890 (emphasis added). See Ohio Forestry at 733 (challenge to U.S. Forest Service management plan not ripe); Ecology Ctr. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 192 F.3d 922, 925 (9 th Cir. 1990) (challenge to a general monitoring [program, which is not] an action that marks the culmination of a decision making process not ripe for review); Nat l Park Hospitality Ass n v. Dep t of the Interior, 538 U.S. 803, (2003) (challenge was to nothing more than a general statemen[t] of policy ). 9

16 Thus, where as here plaintiffs challenge final regulations published in the Code of Federal Regulations which mark the culmination of the agency decisionmaking process, and merely pose the purely legal question of whether such regulations comply with statutory authority, they are ripe for review and the panel erred by finding to the contrary. As will be explained, decisions from other circuits, especially the District of Columbia Circuit which entertains a large number of such challenges, confirms this conclusion, and rehearing is necessary to keep the Ninth Circuit from becoming out of step with the other circuits in this exceptionally important matter. B. The Panel s Decision Conflicts with Established Precedent from the Sister Circuits on a Matter of Exceptional Importance, the Reviewability of Nationwide Regulations The panel s decision conflicts with established precedent from the other circuits, particularly the District of Columbia Circuit. Further, the reviewability of final regulations of national application is a matter of exceptional importance, warranting rehearing. The following opinions explain that the sister circuits find that challenges to final, published regulations are ripe for review absent unusual circumstances (not alleged to be present in this appeal): 10

17 Nat l Assoc. of Home Builders v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 440 F.3d 459, (D.C. Cir. 2006) (regulatory challenge ripe where the issue was the faithful application of the regulation [which plaintiff] claims facially exceeds the agencies' statutory authority, and is not intertwined with how the Commission might exercise its discretion in the future. Id. (citations omitted; emphasis in original citation). 3 Nat l Mining Ass'n v. Fowler, 324 F.3d 752, (D.C. Cir.2003) (facial challenge to regulations ripe for review: [W]e ask first whether the issue raised in the petition for review presents a purely legal question, in which case it is presumptively reviewable. ). Nat l Treasury Employees Union v. Chertoff, 452 F.3d 839, (D.C. Cir. 2006) (facial rule challenge to majority of challenged rules was ripe, including one determining that certain subjects are not 3. Earth Island did not bring, and the panel made no finding, that the claims in this appeal raised anything but purely legal challenges to the faithful application of the regulations. See Op. at Instead, the panel relies on cases such as Lujan and Nat l Park, supra, which as discussed did not involve challenges to final regulations published in the Code of Federal Regulations, but rather were challenges to collections of individual agency actions or programmatic land management plans. Compare Op. at 9330 with discussion supra at

18 subject to collective bargaining ; only exception was penalty mitigation rule which could benefit from factual application). Better Gov t Assoc. v. Dept. of State, 780 F.2d 86, (D.C. Cir. 1986) (facial rule challenges were ripe and would not benefit from deferring issues for further factual development). Triple G Landfills Inc. v. Board of Commissioners of Fountain County, Indiana, 977 F.2d 287, (7 th 1992) (facial challenge ripe: This lawsuit... mounts a facial attack upon the validity of the ordinance itself, not a challenge to a particular administrative decision reached thereunder. The issues posed are purely legal.... ). Accordingly, because the panel s decision conflicts with the ripeness jurisprudence of the sister circuits regarding facial challenges to final, published regulations, rehearing is warranted. This is an exceptionally important matter because if the panel s decision stands, facial challenges to regulations of nationwide application may no longer be brought in the Ninth Circuit, and would need to be brought in other circuits instead, potentially prejudicing people who live within the Ninth Circuit. 12

19 II. The Panel Should, At a Minimum, Modify Two Aspects of its Opinion A. The Panel Should Vacate the Application of its Judgment as to 36 U.S.C (b)(1) Because the Forest Service Did Not Appeal That Claim so the Court Had No Jurisdiction The panel instructed the district court to vacate its injunction regarding the remaining regulations besides 36 C.F.R (f), due to its ripeness holding. Op. at However, the Court had no jurisdiction over one of the regulations, 36 U.S.C (b)(1) (plaintiffs Claim 12), because the Forest Service did not appeal the district court s ruling as to that regulation. See FS Op. Brf. at 13 n.6 (Addendum B). 4 Because the Forest Service did not appeal the district court s ruling as to this regulation, this Court had no jurisdiction to set aside the district court s final ruling. Erlin v. United States, 364 F.3d 1127, 1130 (9 th Cir. 2004) ( The United States did not appeal, and that decision became final. We therefore have no occasion to examine the correctness of the district court's decision.... ); Wininger v. S.I. 4. This regulation permitted the Forest Service to wait five days after deciding an appeal before sending the decision to appellants, shortening the effective time of the 15-day post-decision stay provision of the ARA by 5 days. See ARA (e)(2). 13

20 Management LP, 301 F.3d 1115, 1122 (9 th Cir. 2002) ( The Price Objectors failed to appeal the order approving the settlement class; therefore this court has no jurisdiction to consider the question. ) (citation omitted); The Wilderness Society v. Norton, 434 F.3d 584, 597 (D.C. Cir. 2006) ( The Government did not cross-appeal the District Court's orders covering five claims on which relief was granted to TWS. We offer no judgment on these matters. Government counsel... conceded that no review was properly sought on these matters. ). Accordingly, the panel should modify its judgment by stating that it does not affect the district court s final judgment setting aside 36 U.S.C (b)(1). B. The Opinion should be Amended to Clarify that 36 C.F.R (a) Remains Enjoined The panel only referred to 36 C.F.R (f) in affirming the district s court s invalidation of the regulatory provision exempting categorically excluded decisions from public notice, comment, and appeal. Op. at However, another regulatory provision, 36 C.F.R (a), was also involved in this issue, with that regulation exempting Forest Service decisions from notice and comment procedures, while section (f) exempted the same decisions from 14

21 administrative appeal. See FS Op. Brf. at 12 (Addendum B). The panel s failure to mention section 215.4(a) appears to be an oversight. Section 215.4(a) exempted Forest Service decisions categorically excluded from NEPA procedures from public notice and comment, while section (f) exempted them from the Forest Service s administrative appeal procedures. It would not make sense to set aside section (f) and not section 215.4(a), as a Forest Service decision may not be appealed unless the appellant has provided public comment or otherwise notified the Forest Service of his interest in the decision. See ARA (c). Further, there is no evidence in the panel s opinion that it meant to affirm the district court s opinion as to section (f) and not section 215.4(a), and the same reasoning applies to both. Accordingly, the opinion should be clarified to reflect that the panel was also affirming the district court s vacature of section 215.4(a). CONCLUSION For these reasons, panel rehearing, and/or rehearing en banc, should be granted. 15

22 Respectfully submitted November 30, Matt Kenna, CO Bar # Western Environmental Law Center 679 E. 2 nd Ave., Suite 11B Durango, CO (970) mattkenna@gmail.com Attorney for Plaintiffs/Appellees/ Cross-Appellants CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH TYPE-VOLUME LIMITATION I certify that pursuant to Circuit Rule 40-1(a), this petition for panel rehearing/petition for rehearing en banc is proportionately spaced, has a typeface of 14 points or more and contains 3,065 words (petitions and answers must not exceed 4,200 words). Matt Kenna 16

23 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on November 30, 2006, I sent a copy of this document to the following counsel of record by First-Class, U.S. Mail, and by Katherine Hazard, Attorney Appellate Section Environment & Natural Resources Division Department of Justice Box 23795, L Enfant Plaza Station Washington, D.C Katherine.Hazard@usdoj.gov Thomas R. Lundquist Crowell & Moring LLP 1001 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC tlundquist@crowell.com Matt Kenna 17

24 ADDENDA Addendum A: Addendum B: Declaration of Jim Bensman, from Federal Appellants Excerpts of Record Opening Brief for the Federal Defendants- Appellants (excerpts) Addendum C: Order, The Wilderness Soc y v. Rey, CV M-DWM (D. Mont. Apr. 3, 2006) (excerpts)

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No. 16-4159 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT OWNER-OPERATOR INDEPENDENT DRIVERS ASSOCIATION, INC. (a.k.a. OOIDA ) AND SCOTT MITCHELL, Petitioners, vs. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT

More information

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. CLEAN AIR COUNCIL, et al.,

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. CLEAN AIR COUNCIL, et al., USCA Case #17-1145 Document #1683079 Filed: 07/07/2017 Page 1 of 15 NOT YET SCHEDULED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT No. 17-1145 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT CLEAN AIR

More information

Case 1:16-cv JDB Document 56 Filed 01/16/18 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 1:16-cv JDB Document 56 Filed 01/16/18 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Case 1:16-cv-02113-JDB Document 56 Filed 01/16/18 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AARP, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Case No.

More information

Supreme Court of the United States

Supreme Court of the United States No. 15-1387 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE, ET AL., Petitioners, v. COTTONWOOD ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the

More information

No (and consolidated cases) IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

No (and consolidated cases) IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT USCA Case #15-1381 Document #1675253 Filed: 05/15/2017 Page 1 of 14 ORAL ARGUMENT REMOVED FROM CALENDAR No. 15-1381 (and consolidated cases) IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

More information

Supreme Court of the United States

Supreme Court of the United States No. 07-463 In the Supreme Court of the United States Ë PRISCILLA SUMMERS, et al., v. Petitioners, EARTH ISLAND INSTITUTE, et al., Ë Respondents. On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals

More information

ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED: OCTOBER 17, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED: OCTOBER 17, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT USCA Case #15-1219 Document #1693477 Filed: 09/18/2017 Page 1 of 11 ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED: OCTOBER 17, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ) UTILITY SOLID

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. MEMORANDUM OPINION (June 14, 2016)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. MEMORANDUM OPINION (June 14, 2016) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SIERRA CLUB, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY and GINA McCARTHY, Administrator, United States Environmental Protection

More information

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. SIERRA CLUB; and VIRGINIA WILDERNESS COMMITTEE,

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. SIERRA CLUB; and VIRGINIA WILDERNESS COMMITTEE, USCA4 Appeal: 18-2095 Doc: 50 Filed: 01/16/2019 Pg: 1 of 8 No. 18-2095 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT SIERRA CLUB; and VIRGINIA WILDERNESS COMMITTEE, v. Petitioners, UNITED

More information

Justiciability: Barriers to Administrative and Judicial Review. Kirsten Nathanson Crowell & Moring LLP September 14, 2016

Justiciability: Barriers to Administrative and Judicial Review. Kirsten Nathanson Crowell & Moring LLP September 14, 2016 Justiciability: Barriers to Administrative and Judicial Review Kirsten Nathanson Crowell & Moring LLP September 14, 2016 Overview Standing Mootness Ripeness 2 Standing Does the party bringing suit have

More information

Case 9:03-cv DWM Document 57 Filed 04/24/06 Page 1 of 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA MISSOULA DIVISION

Case 9:03-cv DWM Document 57 Filed 04/24/06 Page 1 of 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA MISSOULA DIVISION Case 9:03-cv-009-DWM Document 57 Filed 04/24/06 Page of 4 2006 APR 2Y Ffl 4 20 RY -, ----. PATRICK E. CUFF'f ----.--- DEPUTY CLERK IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA MISSOULA

More information

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN NO ORAL ARGUMENT HELD SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 IN NO

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN NO ORAL ARGUMENT HELD SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 IN NO USCA Case #15-1379 Document #1671083 Filed: 04/14/2017 Page 1 of 8 ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN NO. 17-1014 ORAL ARGUMENT HELD SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 IN NO. 15-1363 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

More information

ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR APRIL 19, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR APRIL 19, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) USCA Case #15-1385 Document #1670271 Filed: 04/10/2017 Page 1 of 11 ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR APRIL 19, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT MURRAY ENERGY CORP.,

More information

Case 2:15-cv JCC Document 61 Filed 11/26/18 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE

Case 2:15-cv JCC Document 61 Filed 11/26/18 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE Case :-cv-0-jcc Document Filed // Page of THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 0 PUGET SOUNDKEEPER ALLIANCE, et al., v. Plaintiffs, ANDREW

More information

Case 1:08-cv EGS Document 10-2 Filed 11/25/2008 Page 1 of 21 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 1:08-cv EGS Document 10-2 Filed 11/25/2008 Page 1 of 21 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Case 1:08-cv-01689-EGS Document 10-2 Filed 11/25/2008 Page 1 of 21 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CALIFORNIA CATTLEMEN S ASSOCIATION, et al., v. Plaintiffs, DIRK KEMPTHORNE,

More information

SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA

SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA Rel: January 11, 2019 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama

More information

No IN THE United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. HO-CHUNK, INC. et al., Appellant,

No IN THE United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. HO-CHUNK, INC. et al., Appellant, USCA Case #17-5140 Document #1711535 Filed: 01/04/2018 Page 1 of 17 No. 17-5140 IN THE United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit HO-CHUNK, INC. et al., Appellant, v. JEFF SESSIONS

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No (Consolidated with No )

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No (Consolidated with No ) Case: 15-15857, 01/26/2018, ID: 10740042, DktEntry: 76-1, Page 1 of 25 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 15-15857 (Consolidated with No. 15-15754) GRAND CANYON TRUST, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,

More information

Case 3:14-cv PGS-DEA Document 24 Filed 08/18/14 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 146

Case 3:14-cv PGS-DEA Document 24 Filed 08/18/14 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 146 Case 3:14-cv-02686-PGS-DEA Document 24 Filed 08/18/14 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 146 PAUL J. FISHMAN United States Attorney By: J. ANDREW RUYMANN Assistant U.S. Attorney 402 East State Street, Room 430 Trenton,

More information

NOS and (consolidated) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

NOS and (consolidated) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NOS. 11-35661 and 11-35670 (consolidated) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ALLIANCE FOR THE WILD ROCKIES; FRIENDS OF THE CLEARWATER; and WILDEARTH GUARDIANS, and Plaintiffs - Appellants,

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case :0-cv-0-BEN-BLM Document Filed 0//0 Page of 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DANIEL TARTAKOVSKY, MOHAMMAD HASHIM NASEEM, ZAHRA JAMSHIDI, MEHDI HORMOZAN, vs. Plaintiffs,

More information

ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR NOVEMBER 9, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR NOVEMBER 9, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT USCA Case #15-1492 Document #1696614 Filed: 10/03/2017 Page 1 of 9 ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR NOVEMBER 9, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ) SIERRA CLUB,

More information

Case: , 04/17/2019, ID: , DktEntry: 37-1, Page 1 of 7 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Case: , 04/17/2019, ID: , DktEntry: 37-1, Page 1 of 7 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Case: 18-15054, 04/17/2019, ID: 11266832, DktEntry: 37-1, Page 1 of 7 (1 of 11) NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FILED APR 17 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT

More information

Case 2:15-cv JCC Document 28 Filed 04/06/18 Page 1 of 9

Case 2:15-cv JCC Document 28 Filed 04/06/18 Page 1 of 9 Case :-cv-0-jcc Document Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE PUGET SOUNDKEEPER ALLIANCE and SIERRA CLUB v. Plaintiffs, SCOTT PRUITT, in

More information

Case 3:17-cv WHO Document 51 Filed 01/05/18 Page 1 of 14

Case 3:17-cv WHO Document 51 Filed 01/05/18 Page 1 of 14 Case :-cv-0-who Document Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 Gary J. Smith (SBN BEVERIDGE & DIAMOND, P.C. Montgomery Street, Suite 00 San Francisco, CA 0- Telephone: ( -000 Facsimile: ( -00 gsmith@bdlaw.com Peter J.

More information

Nos & IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. STEVE TRUNK, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees,

Nos & IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. STEVE TRUNK, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, Case: 13-57126, 08/25/2016, ID: 10101715, DktEntry: 109-1, Page 1 of 19 Nos. 13-57126 & 14-55231 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT STEVE TRUNK, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v.

More information

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT USCA Case #17-1145 Document #1679553 Filed: 06/14/2017 Page 1 of 14 ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT CLEAN AIR COUNCIL, EARTHWORKS, ENVIRONMENTAL

More information

Case 1:08-cv WS-C Document 28 Filed 06/06/2008 Page 1 of 21 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

Case 1:08-cv WS-C Document 28 Filed 06/06/2008 Page 1 of 21 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA Case 1:08-cv-00182-WS-C Document 28 Filed 06/06/2008 Page 1 of 21 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA STATE OF ALABAMA * * Plaintiff, * * CASE NO: C.A. 08-0182-WS-C

More information

Case 2:17-cv WB Document 85 Filed 12/10/18 Page 1 of 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Case 2:17-cv WB Document 85 Filed 12/10/18 Page 1 of 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA Case 2:17-cv-04540-WB Document 85 Filed 12/10/18 Page 1 of 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Plaintiff, v. DONALD J. TRUMP, in

More information

Supreme Court of the United States

Supreme Court of the United States No. 15-290 In the Supreme Court of the United States Ë UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, v. HAWKES CO., INC., et al., Ë Petitioner, Respondents. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States

More information

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

In the United States Court of Federal Claims In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 03-2371C (Filed November 3, 2003) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * SPHERIX, INC., * * Plaintiff, * * Bid protest; Public v. * interest

More information

Case 9:03-cv DWM Document 49 Filed 04/03/2006 Page 1 of 20 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA MISSOULA DIVISION

Case 9:03-cv DWM Document 49 Filed 04/03/2006 Page 1 of 20 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA MISSOULA DIVISION Case 9:03-cv-00119-DWM Document 49 Filed 04/03/2006 Page 1 of 20 I'ILED MISSOULA. MT 2006 APR 3 F'T 2 27 PATRICK E. DgFFY BY -.n. E.,, i l L.1 i LL-;,i, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA GREAT FALLS DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA GREAT FALLS DIVISION Case 4:17-cv-00029-BMM Document 210 Filed 08/15/18 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA GREAT FALLS DIVISION INDIGENOUS ENVIRONMENTAL NETWORK and NORTH COAST RIVER

More information

LEWIS COUNTY; SKAMANIA COUNTY; AND KLICKITAT COUNTY, WASHINGTON, Plaintiffs-Intervenors-Appellants v.

LEWIS COUNTY; SKAMANIA COUNTY; AND KLICKITAT COUNTY, WASHINGTON, Plaintiffs-Intervenors-Appellants v. USCA Case #15-5304 Document #1676926 Filed: 05/26/2017 Page 1 of 24 15-5304 & 15-5334 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CARPENTERS INDUSTRIAL COUNCIL; SISKIYOU COUNTY,

More information

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 15-3452 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, Respondent-Appellant. Appeal From

More information

Case: , 04/30/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 58-1, Page 1 of 5 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Case: , 04/30/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 58-1, Page 1 of 5 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Case: 17-70162, 04/30/2018, ID: 10854860, DktEntry: 58-1, Page 1 of 5 (1 of 10) NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FILED APR 30 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT

More information

Nos , IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Nos , IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Case: 15-15754, 04/20/2018, ID: 10845100, DktEntry: 87, Page 1 of 23 Nos. 15-15754, 15-15857 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HAVASUPAI TRIBE, GRAND CANYON TRUST, CENTER FOR

More information

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS AND JUDICIAL REVIEW. Deborah L. Cade Law Seminars International SEPA & NEPA CLE January 17, 2007

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS AND JUDICIAL REVIEW. Deborah L. Cade Law Seminars International SEPA & NEPA CLE January 17, 2007 ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS AND JUDICIAL REVIEW Deborah L. Cade Law Seminars International SEPA & NEPA CLE January 17, 2007 OUTLINE OF PRESENTATION STANDING STANDARD OF REVIEW SCOPE OF REVIEW INJUNCTIONS STATUTE

More information

ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR APRIL 17, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR APRIL 17, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT USCA Case #15-1381 Document #1668276 Filed: 03/28/2017 Page 1 of 12 ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR APRIL 17, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ) STATE OF NORTH

More information

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT USCA Case #15-1219 Document #1609250 Filed: 04/18/2016 Page 1 of 16 ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ) UTILITY SOLID WASTE ACTIVITIES

More information

Nos , IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

Nos , IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Appellate Case: 16-8068 Document: 01019780139 Date Filed: 03/15/2017 Page: 1 Nos. 16-8068, 16-8069 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT STATE OF WYOMING; STATE OF COLORADO; INDEPENDENT

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Case: 18-15068, 04/10/2018, ID: 10831190, DktEntry: 137-2, Page 1 of 15 Nos. 18-15068, 18-15069, 18-15070, 18-15071, 18-15072, 18-15128, 18-15133, 18-15134 United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION (at Lexington) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) *** *** *** ***

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION (at Lexington) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) *** *** *** *** Case: 5:17-cv-00351-DCR Doc #: 19 Filed: 03/15/18 Page: 1 of 11 - Page ID#: 440 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION (at Lexington THOMAS NORTON, et al., V. Plaintiffs,

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION STATE OF ALABAMA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CIVIL ACTION 08-0182-WS-C ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., ) ) Defendants.

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA GREAT FALLS DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA GREAT FALLS DIVISION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA GREAT FALLS DIVISION WESTERN ORGANIZATION OF RESOURCE COUNCILS, et al. CV 16-21-GF-BMM Plaintiffs, vs. U.S. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, an

More information

Case 5:16-cv LHK Document 79 Filed 01/18/19 Page 1 of 13

Case 5:16-cv LHK Document 79 Filed 01/18/19 Page 1 of 13 Case :-cv-0-lhk Document Filed 0// Page of 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION OCEANA, INC., Plaintiff, v. WILBUR ROSS, et al., Defendants. Case No. -CV-0-LHK

More information

ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR APRIL 19, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR APRIL 19, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT USCA Case #15-1385 Document #1670218 Filed: 04/07/2017 Page 1 of 10 ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR APRIL 19, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Murray Energy Corporation,

More information

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. ALEXIS DEGELMANN, et al., ADVANCED MEDICAL OPTICS INC.,

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. ALEXIS DEGELMANN, et al., ADVANCED MEDICAL OPTICS INC., Case: 10-15222 11/14/2011 ID: 7963092 DktEntry: 45-2 Page: 1 of 17 No. 10-15222 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ALEXIS DEGELMANN, et al., v. Plaintiffs-Appellants, ADVANCED

More information

Case 1:13-cv BJR Document 29 Filed 11/18/14 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 1:13-cv BJR Document 29 Filed 11/18/14 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Case 1:13-cv-00850-BJR Document 29 Filed 11/18/14 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA THE CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE GRAND RONDE COMMUNITY OF OREGON, and CLARK

More information

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT USCA Case #17-1014 Document #1668936 Filed: 03/31/2017 Page 1 of 10 ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ) STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA, ET

More information

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN NO ORAL ARGUMENT HELD SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 IN NO

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN NO ORAL ARGUMENT HELD SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 IN NO USCA Case #17-1014 Document #1671066 Filed: 04/13/2017 Page 1 of 8 ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN NO. 17-1014 ORAL ARGUMENT HELD SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 IN NO. 15-1363 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

More information

Case: , 02/08/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 82-1, Page 1 of cv. United States Court of Appeals. for the.

Case: , 02/08/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 82-1, Page 1 of cv. United States Court of Appeals. for the. Case: 15-15754, 02/08/2018, ID: 10756751, DktEntry: 82-1, Page 1 of 20 15-15754-cv United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit HAVASUPAI TRIBE, Plaintiff-Appellant, GRAND CANYON TRUST; CENTER

More information

Case: /20/2014 ID: DktEntry: 56-1 Page: 1 of 4 (1 of 13) NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Case: /20/2014 ID: DktEntry: 56-1 Page: 1 of 4 (1 of 13) NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Case: 12-16258 03/20/2014 ID: 9023773 DktEntry: 56-1 Page: 1 of 4 (1 of 13) FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 20 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH

More information

Case: , 10/18/2016, ID: , DktEntry: 57-1, Page 1 of 4 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Case: , 10/18/2016, ID: , DktEntry: 57-1, Page 1 of 4 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Case: 13-56454, 10/18/2016, ID: 10163305, DktEntry: 57-1, Page 1 of 4 (1 of 9) NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FILED OCT 18 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Case:-cv-0-MEJ Document Filed0// Page of 0 CITY OF OAKLAND, v. Northern District of California Plaintiff, ERIC HOLDER, Attorney General of the United States; MELINDA HAAG, U.S. Attorney for the Northern

More information

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT USCA Case #17-1038 Document #1666639 Filed: 03/17/2017 Page 1 of 15 ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ) CONSUMERS FOR AUTO RELIABILITY

More information

Case 1:11-cv RHS-WDS Document 5 Filed 11/10/11 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

Case 1:11-cv RHS-WDS Document 5 Filed 11/10/11 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO Case 1:11-cv-00946-RHS-WDS Document 5 Filed 11/10/11 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO LOS ALAMOS STUDY GROUP, v. Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY,

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT DEFEENDANT-APPELLEE S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT DEFEENDANT-APPELLEE S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME Case: 15-5100 Document: 89-1 Page: 1 Filed: 11/29/2016 (1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT ANTHONY PISZEL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. 2015-5100 UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee.

More information

No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Case: 11-15871 05/22/2014 ID: 9105887 DktEntry: 139 Page: 1 of 24 No. 11-15871 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SAN LUIS & DELTA-MENDOTA WATER AUTHORITY, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees,

More information

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Catskill Mountainkeeper, Inc., Clean Air Council, Delaware-Otsego Audubon Society, Inc., Riverkeeper, Inc.,

More information

Case 7:16-cv O Document 68 Filed 01/19/17 Page 1 of 6 PageID 1790

Case 7:16-cv O Document 68 Filed 01/19/17 Page 1 of 6 PageID 1790 Case 7:16-cv-00108-O Document 68 Filed 01/19/17 Page 1 of 6 PageID 1790 FRANCISCAN ALLIANCE, INC., et al., v. Plaintiffs, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WICHITA

More information

Case 2:09-cv CAS-MAN Document 107 Filed 05/07/10 Page 1 of 9 Page ID #:1464 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Case 2:09-cv CAS-MAN Document 107 Filed 05/07/10 Page 1 of 9 Page ID #:1464 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Case 2:09-cv-07097-CAS-MAN Document 107 Filed 05/07/10 Page 1 of 9 Page ID #:1464 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FILED MAY072010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS NATIONAL

More information

[ORAL ARGUMENT HELD ON APRIL 15, 2016] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. Defendants-Appellees.

[ORAL ARGUMENT HELD ON APRIL 15, 2016] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. Defendants-Appellees. USCA Case #14-5243 Document #1672205 Filed: 04/21/2017 Page 1 of 5 [ORAL ARGUMENT HELD ON APRIL 15, 2016] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT PERRY CAPITAL, LLC,

More information

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT USCA Case #13-1108 Document #1670157 Filed: 04/07/2017 Page 1 of 7 ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE,

More information

[NOT YET SCHEDULED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

[NOT YET SCHEDULED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT USCA Case #18-5289 Document #1752834 Filed: 09/27/2018 Page 1 of 10 [NOT YET SCHEDULED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT AMERICAN FEDERATION

More information

Case 1:12-cv JDB Document 25-2 Filed 08/20/12 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 1:12-cv JDB Document 25-2 Filed 08/20/12 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Case 1:12-cv-00111-JDB Document 25-2 Filed 08/20/12 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AMERICAN FOREST RESOURCE COUNCIL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DANIEL M. ASHE

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT Case: 08-2370 Document: 102 Date Filed: 04/14/2011 Page: 1 PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT SOUTHERN ALLIANCE FOR CLEAN ENERGY; ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND; NATIONAL PARKS

More information

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN NO ORAL ARGUMENT HELD SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 IN NO

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN NO ORAL ARGUMENT HELD SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 IN NO USCA Case #17-1014 Document #1668929 Filed: 03/31/2017 Page 1 of 6 ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN NO. 17-1014 ORAL ARGUMENT HELD SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 IN NO. 15-1363 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

More information

No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. VALERIE SOTO, as Guardian Ad Litem of Y.D., a minor, Plaintiff-Appellant,

No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. VALERIE SOTO, as Guardian Ad Litem of Y.D., a minor, Plaintiff-Appellant, Case: 17-16705, 11/22/2017, ID: 10665607, DktEntry: 15, Page 1 of 20 No. 17-16705 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT VALERIE SOTO, as Guardian Ad Litem of Y.D., a minor, Plaintiff-Appellant,

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM. GUAM DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Petitioner-Appellant, GUAM CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, Respondent-Appellee,

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM. GUAM DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Petitioner-Appellant, GUAM CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, Respondent-Appellee, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM GUAM DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Petitioner-Appellant, v. GUAM CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, Respondent-Appellee, CAROL SOMERFLECK, ET AL., Real Parties in Interest-Appellees. Supreme

More information

ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR MAY 8, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR MAY 8, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT USCA Case #15-1166 Document #1671681 Filed: 04/18/2017 Page 1 of 10 ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR MAY 8, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT WALTER COKE, INC.,

More information

[NOT YET SCHEDULED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

[NOT YET SCHEDULED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT USCA Case #18-5289 Document #1754397 Filed: 10/09/2018 Page 1 of 8 [NOT YET SCHEDULED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT AMERICAN FEDERATION OF

More information

Cottonwood Environmental Law Center v. United States Forest Service

Cottonwood Environmental Law Center v. United States Forest Service Public Land and Resources Law Review Volume 0 Case Summaries 2015-2016 Cottonwood Environmental Law Center v. United States Forest Service Maresa A. Jenson Alexander Blewett III School of Law at the University

More information

Case 2:14-cv CJB-MBN Document 32 Filed 12/12/14 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

Case 2:14-cv CJB-MBN Document 32 Filed 12/12/14 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA Case 2:14-cv-00649-CJB-MBN Document 32 Filed 12/12/14 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA ATCHAFALAYA BASINKEEPER and LOUISIANA CRAWFISH No. 2:14-cv-00649-CJB-MBN PRODUCERS

More information

Case: , 09/19/2017, ID: , DktEntry: 40-1, Page 1 of 6 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Case: , 09/19/2017, ID: , DktEntry: 40-1, Page 1 of 6 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Case: 15-56799, 09/19/2017, ID: 10585776, DktEntry: 40-1, Page 1 of 6 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FILED SEP 19 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. Edward Peruta, et al,, Case No

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. Edward Peruta, et al,, Case No Case: 10-56971, 04/22/2015, ID: 9504505, DktEntry: 238-1, Page 1 of 21 (1 of 36) IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Edward Peruta, et al,, Case No. 10-56971 Plaintiffs-Appellants,

More information

Case: /16/2014 ID: DktEntry: 37-1 Page: 1 of 4 (1 of 9) NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Case: /16/2014 ID: DktEntry: 37-1 Page: 1 of 4 (1 of 9) NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Case: 12-15498 10/16/2014 ID: 9278435 DktEntry: 37-1 Page: 1 of 4 (1 of 9) NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FILED OCT 16 2014 RICHARD ENOS; et al., No. 12-15498

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY; PACIFIC ENVIRONMENT; TURTLE ISLAND RESTORATION NETWORK, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. EXPORT-IMPORT BANK

More information

Planning an Environmental Case as a Plaintiff

Planning an Environmental Case as a Plaintiff Planning an Environmental Case as a Plaintiff Tom Buchele, Managing Attorney and Clinical Professor, Earthrise Law Center, Lewis & Clark School of Law, Portland, Oregon Judicial Review of Federal Agency

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case 2:14-cv-09281-PSG-SH Document 34 Filed 04/02/15 Page 1 of 8 Page ID #:422 Present: The Honorable Philip S. Gutierrez, United States District Judge Wendy Hernandez Deputy Clerk Attorneys Present for

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT USCA Case #19-5042 Document #1779028 Filed: 03/24/2019 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT : DAMIEN GUEDUES, et al., : : No. 19-5042 Appellants : : Consolidated

More information

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT USCA Case #12-1342 Document #1426559 Filed: 03/21/2013 Page 1 of 5 ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT UTILITY AIR REGULATORY GROUP, et al.,

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT USCA Case #17-1145 Document #1686475 Filed: 07/31/2017 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT CLEAN AIR COUNCIL, EARTHWORKS, ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND,

More information

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Case: 11-16310 09/17/2012 ID: 8325958 DktEntry: 65-1 Page: 1 of 4 (1 of 9) FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 17 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH

More information

In the Supreme Court of the United States. District of Columbia and Mayor Adrian M. Fenty, Petitioners, Dick Heller, et al.

In the Supreme Court of the United States. District of Columbia and Mayor Adrian M. Fenty, Petitioners, Dick Heller, et al. In the Supreme Court of the United States 6 2W7 District of Columbia and Mayor Adrian M. Fenty, Petitioners, Dick Heller, et al. ON APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT. JEFFREY F. SAYERS Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT. JEFFREY F. SAYERS Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent. Case: 18-2195 CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 20-1 Page: 1 Filed: 11/20/2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT JEFFREY F. SAYERS Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent.

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT COTTONWOOD ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER, Plaintiff-Appellee /Cross-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE; FAYE KRUEGER, in her official

More information

In The Supreme Court of the United States

In The Supreme Court of the United States No. 12-623 In The Supreme Court of the United States UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. PACIFIC RIVERS COUNCIL, ET AL., RESPONDENTS ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED

More information

Case 1:00-cv RBW Document 176 Filed 12/11/12 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 1:00-cv RBW Document 176 Filed 12/11/12 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Case 1:00-cv-02502-RBW Document 176 Filed 12/11/12 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ROSEMARY LOVE, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 00-2502 (RBW)

More information

Case 3:02-cv JSW Document 117 Filed 08/23/2005 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 3:02-cv JSW Document 117 Filed 08/23/2005 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case :0-cv-0-JSW Document Filed 0//00 Page of IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA FRIENDS OF THE EARTH, INC.; GREENPEACE, INC.; CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO; CITY OF

More information

Case 1:08-cv WYD-MJW Document 41 Filed 01/14/2010 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 8

Case 1:08-cv WYD-MJW Document 41 Filed 01/14/2010 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 8 Case 1:08-cv-01624-WYD-MJW Document 41 Filed 01/14/2010 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 8 Civil Action No. 08-cv-01624-WYD-MJW IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Chief Judge Wiley

More information

Case 7:16-cv O Document 100 Filed 11/20/16 Page 1 of 6 PageID 1792

Case 7:16-cv O Document 100 Filed 11/20/16 Page 1 of 6 PageID 1792 Case 7:16-cv-00054-O Document 100 Filed 11/20/16 Page 1 of 6 PageID 1792 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WICHITA FALLS DIVISION STATE OF TEXAS et al., v. Plaintiffs,

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Page 1 of 6 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 00-1578 FINA TECHNOLOGY, INC. and FINA OIL AND CHEMICAL COMPANY, Plaintiffs-Appellees, JOHN A. EWEN, Defendant-Appellant, ABBAS RAZAVI,

More information

Case3:15-cv JCS Document21 Filed05/06/15 Page1 of 19

Case3:15-cv JCS Document21 Filed05/06/15 Page1 of 19 Case:-cv-00-JCS Document Filed0/0/ Page of 0 Kirsten L. Nathanson (DC Bar #)* Thomas Lundquist (DC Bar # )* Sherrie A. Armstrong (DC Bar #00)* 00 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 000 T: (0) -00 F:(0)

More information

Introduction. 1. In an effort to give native Americans greater control over their own affairs,

Introduction. 1. In an effort to give native Americans greater control over their own affairs, Case 1:04-cv-01215-TFH Document 13 Filed 11/08/2004 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA INDIAN EDUCATORS FEDERATION : (Local 4524 of the AMERICAN FEDERATION :

More information

Case: , 05/19/2016, ID: , DktEntry: 33-1, Page 1 of 3 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Case: , 05/19/2016, ID: , DktEntry: 33-1, Page 1 of 3 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Case: 14-16051, 05/19/2016, ID: 9982763, DktEntry: 33-1, Page 1 of 3 (1 of 8) NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FILED MAY 19 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT

More information

USCA Case # Document # Filed: 04/22/2011 Page 3 of 11

USCA Case # Document # Filed: 04/22/2011 Page 3 of 11 USCA Case #10-1070 Document #1304582 Filed: 04/22/2011 Page 3 of 11 3 BROWN, Circuit Judge, joined by SENTELLE, Chief Judge, dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc: It is a commonplace of administrative

More information

Docket No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Docket No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Docket No. 07-35821 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT INTERSCOPE RECORDS, a California general partnership; CAPITAL RECORDS, INC., a Delaware corporation; SONY BMG MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT,

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT USCA Case #14-5004 Document #1562709 Filed: 07/15/2015 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Larry Elliott Klayman, et al., Appellees-Cross-Appellants,

More information

Case 4:08-cv CW Document 230 Filed 11/18/08 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 4:08-cv CW Document 230 Filed 11/18/08 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case :0-cv-0-CW Document 0 Filed //0 Page of IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY; NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL; and GREENPEACE,

More information