ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS AND JUDICIAL REVIEW. Deborah L. Cade Law Seminars International SEPA & NEPA CLE January 17, 2007
|
|
- Jade Moore
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS AND JUDICIAL REVIEW Deborah L. Cade Law Seminars International SEPA & NEPA CLE January 17, 2007
2 OUTLINE OF PRESENTATION STANDING STANDARD OF REVIEW SCOPE OF REVIEW INJUNCTIONS STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS 2
3 I. STANDING Where the party does not rely on any specific statute authorizing invocation of the judicial process, the question of standing depends upon whether the party has alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to ensure that the dispute sought to be adjudicated will be presented in an adversary context and in a form historically viewed as capable of judicial resolution... Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 (1972) 3
4 A. Constitutional Standing Requirements -- Article III To satisfy Article III standing requirements under the U.S. Constitution, a plaintiff must show that: (1) it has suffered an injury in fact that is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant; and (3) it is likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision. Cantrell v. City of Long Beach, 241 F.3d 674, 679 (9th Cir. 2001) 4
5 1. Injury in Fact a. Concrete and Particularized i. General Interest [T]he injury in fact test requires more than an injury to a cognizable interest. It requires that the party seeking review be himself among the injured. Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 (1972) (alleged injury directly felt only by those who use Mineral King and Sequoia National Park for recreation or aesthetic values; Sierra Club failed to allege that it or its members would be affected in any of their activities or pastimes by the Disney Development). 5
6 1. Injury in Fact a. Concrete and Particularized ii. Aesthetic/Recreational Interest 6 Injury in Fact standing requirement shown if plaintiff shows an aesthetic or recreational interest in a particular place, or animal or plant species and that interest is impaired by a defendant s conduct. Ecological Rights Foundation v. Pacific Lumber Co., 230 F.3d 1141 (9th Cir. 2000) Plaintiff need not live nearby to establish a concrete injury. Repeated recreational use itself, accompanied by a credible allegation of desired future use, can be sufficient even if relatively infrequent, to demonstrate that environmental degradation of the area is injurious to that person. Id.
7 1. Injury in Fact a. Actual or Imminent While the personal injury requirement will be met only if the alleged harm is distinct and palpable... and not abstract or conjectural or hypothetical Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737 (1984), failure to follow procedures designed to ensure that the environmental consequences of a project are adequately evaluated is a sufficient injury. Friends of the Earth v. United States Navy, 841 F.2d 927, 931 (9th Cir. 1988) 7
8 2. Causation To establish causation, the injury must be "fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant[,]" Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, 528 U.S. 167, 180 (2000) and cannot be the result of the "independent action of some third party not before the court." Sierra Club v. United States Fish & Wildlife Service, 235 F. Supp. 2d 1109, 1122 (D. Or. 2002) 8
9 3. Redressability 9 The injury must be "fairly" traceable to the challenged action, and relief from the injury must be "likely" to follow from a favorable decision. Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984). However, a plaintiff asserting inadequacy of a government agency s environmental studies need not show that further analysis would result in a different conclusion. It suffices that an agency s decision could be influenced by environmental considerations that NEPA requires an agency to study. Ocean Advocates v. United States Army Corps of Eng rs, 402 F.3d (9th Cir. 2005)
10 B. APA Standing Requirements (5 U.S.C. 702) A NEPA challenge must also meet the standing requirements for review under the APA which require a plaintiff to: (1) Identify some agency action that adversely affects the plaintiff; and (2) establish that he/she has suffered legal wrong because of the challenged agency action or is adversely affected or aggrieved by that action within the meaning of a relevant statute. 10
11 1. Final Agency Action When judicial review of agency action is sought, not pursuant to specific authorization in substantive statute, but only under general review provisions of the APA, the agency action must be final agency action. 5 U.S.C. 704; Lujan v. National Wildlife Fed n, 497 U.S. 871 (1990) (organization failed to identify any particular agency action that was the source of the alleged injury to its members). 11
12 2. Adversely Affected or Aggrieved To be adversely affected or aggrieved for purposes of obtaining judicial review of agency action under the APA, a plaintiff must establish that the injury complained of (the aggrievement, or the adverse effect) falls within the zone of interests sought to be protected by the statutory provision whose violation forms the legal basis for his complaint. Lujan v. National Wildlife Fed n, 497 U.S. 871 (1990) 12
13 2. Adversely Affected or Aggrieved (cont d) 13 The zone of interests test helps to ensure that only those suits that would further the statutory objectives are allowed, and those that would frustrate it are halted. Clarke v. Securities Industry Ass n, 479 U.S. 388, 397 n.12 (1987) This test is not meant to be especially demanding. Plaintiff need only show that its interests share a plausible relationship to the policies underlying each statute. Ocean Advocates v. United States Army Corps of Eng rs, 402 F.3d 846 (9th Cir. 2005)
14 2. Adversely Affected or Aggrieved (cont d) Purpose of NEPA is to protect the environment, not economic interests. Therefore, a plaintiff who asserts purely economic injuries does not have standing to challenge an agency action under NEPA. Nevada Land Ass n v. United States Forest Service, 8 F.3d 713, 716 (9th Cir. 1993). See also Kanoa, Inc. v. Clinton, 1 F. Supp. 2d 1088 (1988) (plaintiff did not assert environmental injury, but alleged only economic injury resulting from disruption of its business and thus did not establish standing under the APA). 14
15 C. Associational Standing A membership organization can sue in its representative capacity when: (1) its members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right; (2) the interests the organization seeks to protect are germane to the organization s purpose; and (3) neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation of individual members in the lawsuit. Presidio Golf Club v. Nat l Park Serv., 155 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 1998) 15
16 II. STANDARD OF REVIEW The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 ( NEPA ) is a procedural statute designed to ensure that federal agencies taking major actions affecting the quality of the human environment will not act on incomplete information, only to regret its decision after it is too late. Sierra Club v. Bosworth, 2005 WL (N.D. Cal. 2005), quoting Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council, 490 U.S. 360, 371 (1989). 16
17 A. Rule of Reason Standard The Ninth Circuit reviews NEPA documents under the rule of reason standard. Court inquires as to: (1) whether a document contains a reasonably thorough discussion of the significant aspects of the probable environmental consequences; and (2) whether the document s form, content and preparation foster both informed decision-making and informed public participation. See Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr. v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 387 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2004). 17
18 B. Arbitrary and Capricious Standard A review of factual disputes requires the application of the arbitrary and capricious standard. Greenpeace Action v. Franklin, 14 F.3d 1324, 1331 (9th Cir.1992) The court reviews the decision to determine whether the agency considered the relevant factors and articulated a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made. Pacific Coast Fed n of Fishermen s Ass ns, Inc. v. National Marine Fisheries Servs., 265 F.3d 1028, 1034 (9th Cir. 2001) Ultimately, the standard of review is a narrow one. The court is not empowered to substitute its judgment for that of the agency. Arizona Cattle Growers Ass n v. United States Fish & Wildlife, Bureau of Land Mgmt., 273 F.3d 1229, 1236 (9th Cir. 2001) 18
19 C. Two Tests not Materially Different 19 Several circuits, including the Ninth Circuit, have held that the rule of reason review is not materially different from the "arbitrary and capricious" standard in cases involving NEPA. Lands Council v. Powell, 395 F.3d 1019, 1026 n.5 (9th Cir. 2004); League of Wilderness Defenders-Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project v. United States Forest Service, 2004 WL (D. Or. 2004). Under either standard, the goal is to ensure that the agency has taken a "hard look" at the potential environmental consequences of the proposed action. Churchill County v. Norton, 276 F.3d 1060,1072 (9th Cir. 2001)
20 III. SCOPE OF REVIEW [T]he focal point for judicial review should be the administrative record already in existence, not some new record made initially in the reviewing court. Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729 (1985) 20
21 A. Limited to Administrative Record Generally, judicial review of agency action is limited to review of the administrative record. Friends of the Earth v. Hintz, 800 F.2d 822 (9th Cir. 1986) Standard applicable to review of agency action under NEPA. Id. at
22 B. Exceptions 1. Where necessary to explain the agency s action; 2. To determine whether the agency has considered all relevant factors or has explained its course of conduct or grounds of decision; 3. When agency relied on documents not in record; 4. When necessary to explain technical terms or complex subject matter; and 5. When showing of agency bad faith. See Animal Defense Council v. Hodel, 840 F.2d 1432 (9th Cir. 1988). 22
23 C. Broader Scope of Review for Agency Inaction While judicial review of agency action is generally limited to review of the administrative record, where the issue is alleged agency inaction the scope of review is broader, particularly where the issue is whether an agency s activities have triggered NEPA procedures. A broader scope of review is necessary because there will generally be little, if any, record to review. Northcoast Environmental Ctr. v. Glickman, 136 F.3d 660 (9th Cir. 1998) 23
24 D. New Evidence in Challenge to EIS [T]he district court may extend its review beyond the administrative record and permit the introduction of new evidence in NEPA cases where the plaintiff alleges that an EIS has neglected to mention a serious environmental consequence, failed adequately to discuss some reasonable alternative, or otherwise swept stubborn problems or serious criticism... under the rug. See Animal Defense Council v. Hodel, 840 F.2d 1432 (9th Cir. 1988), quoting Suffolk County v. Secretary of Interior, 562 F.2d 1368 (2d Cir. 1977). 24
25 E. Cases Allowing Supplementation of Agency Record Greenpeace U.S.A. v. Evans, 688 F. Supp. 579 (W.D. Wash. 1987) (allowing zoologist s declaration on the basis that it assists the court in concluding that NMFS did not adequately consider the risks of long term adverse impacts on the killer whale population of Puget Sound ). Citizens for Environmental Quality v. United States, 731 F. Supp. 970 (D. Col. 1989) (affidavits of experts on the use of computer models and forest planning relating to decision to issue a comprehensive land resource forest management plan were admissible where affidavits were helpful to the court's understanding of complex issues presented by the case, illuminated information contained in the administrative record, and served as points of reference therein). 25
26 F. Cases Limiting Judicial Review to the Agency Record Friends of the Earth v. Hintz, 800 F.2d 822 (9th Cir. 1986) (district court s decision quashing plaintiff s deposition notices upheld on appeal). Havasupai Tribe v. Robertson, 943 F.2d 32 (9th Cir. 1991) (denying tribes request for discovery because its claim that agency considered evidence beyond the administrative record is purely speculative). 26
27 IV. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF The standard for granting a preliminary injunction balances the plaintiff s likelihood of success against the relative hardship to the parties. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 340 F.3d 810 (9th Cir. 2003) 27
28 A. Standards for Injunctive Relief The Ninth Circuit has recognized two different sets of criteria for injunctive relief: (1) the traditional criteria; and (2) the alternative criteria. Save Our Sonoran, Inc. v. Flowers, 408 F.3d 1113 (9th Cir. 2005) 28
29 B. Traditional Criteria Plaintiff must show: (1) a strong likelihood of success on the merits; (2) the possibility of irreparable injury to plaintiff if preliminary relief is not granted; (3) a balance of hardships favoring plaintiff; and (4) advancement of the public interest (in certain cases). 29
30 C. Alternative Criteria Plaintiff must show either: (1) a combination of probable success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury; or (2) that serious questions are raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in their favor. 30
31 D. Injunctive Relief Under These Criteria are not Separate Tests These two formulations [the traditional and alternative criteria] represent two points on a sliding scale in which the required degree of irreparable harm increases as the probability of success deceases. They are not separate tests but rather outer reaches of a single continuum. Save Our Sonoran, Inc. v. Flowers, 408 F.3d 1113, 1120 (9th Cir. 2005) 31
32 E. Appellate Court Review Limited A district court s order with respect to preliminary injunctive relief is subject to limited review and will be reversed only if the district court abused its discretion or based its decision on an erroneous legal standard or on clearly erroneous findings of fact. United States v. Peninsula Communications, Inc., 287 F.3d 832, 839 (9th Cir. 2002) 32
33 F. Standard of Review for Injunctions on Appeal The appellate court s review may be de novo under circumstances in which the district court s ruling rests solely on a premise of law and the facts are either established or undisputed. A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 284 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2002) However, de novo review was not appropriate when a district court s order was grounded in its factual findings. See Save Our Sonoran, Inc. v. Flowers, 408 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2005) 33
34 G. Preliminary Injunction Bond The district court has discretion to dispense with the security requirement, or to request mere nominal security, where requiring security would effectively deny access to judicial review. Cal. ex rel. Van de Kamp v. Tahoe Reg l Planning Agency, 766 F.2d 1319, 1325 (9th Cir. 1985) (finding proper the district court s exercise of discretion in allowing environmental group to proceed without posting a bond), amended on other grounds, 775 F.2d
35 G. Preliminary Injunction Bond (cont d) So long as a district court does not set such a high bond that it serves to thwart citizen actions, it does not abuse its discretion. See, e.g., Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Brinegar, 518 F.2d 322, 323 (9th Cir. 1975) (reversing the district court s unreasonable high bond of $4,500,000). 35
36 V. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS 36 NEPA does not contain a statute of limitations. Nor does the Administrative Procedure Act (Act), 5 U.S.C , which provides for judicial review of agency actions taken under NEPA. However, 28 U.S.C. 2401(a) has been held to apply to actions brought under the APA. Sierra Club v. Penfold, 857 F.2d 1307, 1315 (9th Cir. 1988). See also Montana Wilderness Assoc. v. Fry, 310 F. Supp. 2d 1127 (D. Mont. 2004) (applying six year statute of limitations to a NEPA challenge). This limitation period may be modified by other statutes.
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 information1 F.Supp.2d CV No DAE.
1 F.Supp.2d 1088 KANOA INC., dba Body Glove Cruises, Plaintiff, v. William Jefferson CLINTON, in his official capacity as President of the United States; William Cohen, in his official capacity as Secretary
More informationCase 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 informationCase 9:13-cv DWM Document 27 Filed 05/08/14 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA MISSOULA DIVISION
Case 9:13-cv-00057-DWM Document 27 Filed 05/08/14 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA MISSOULA DIVISION FILED MAY 082014 Clerk. u.s District Court District Of Montana
More informationCase 1:08-cv RMU Document 53 Filed 07/26/10 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:08-cv-00380-RMU Document 53 Filed 07/26/10 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPALACHIAN VOICES, et al., : : Plaintiffs, : Civil Action No.: 08-0380 (RMU) : v.
More informationCase 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 informationConservation Congress v. U.S. Forest Service
Public Land and Resources Law Review Volume 0 Fall 2013 Case Summaries Conservation Congress v. U.S. Forest Service Katelyn J. Hepburn University of Montana School of Law, katelyn.hepburn@umontana.edu
More informationCase 2:17-cv MJP Document 21 Filed 01/17/18 Page 1 of 10
Case :-cv-00-mjp Document Filed 0// Page of 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 0 TULALIP TRIBES, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JOHN F. KELLY, et al., Defendants. CASE NO.
More informationCase 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 informationLEWIS 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 informationCottonwood 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 informationIN 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 informationCase 1:17-cv JEB Document 16 Filed 04/12/17 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:17-cv-00406-JEB Document 16 Filed 04/12/17 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MASSACHUSETTS LOBSTERMEN S ASSOCIATION; et al., v. Plaintiffs, WILBUR J.
More informationCase 2:16-cv BJR Document 34 Filed 08/03/16 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE
Case :-cv-00-bjr Document Filed 0/0/ Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 0 0 PUGET SOUNDKEEPER ALLIANCE, CENTER FOR JUSTICE, RE SOURCES FOR SUSTAINABLE
More informationCase 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 informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Prescott Division
Case :0-cv-00-PGR Document Filed 0//0 Page of 0 0 DENNIS K. BURKE United States Attorney District of Arizona SUE A. KLEIN Assistant U.S. Attorney Arizona State Bar No. Two Renaissance Square 0 North Central
More informationCase 3:11-cv WHA Document 46 Filed 07/15/11 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :-cv-0-wha Document Filed 0// Page of 0 IGNACIA S. MORENO Assistant Attorney General BARCLAY T. SAMFORD (NM Bar No. ) PETER C. WHITFIELD (HI Bar No. 0) Trial Attorneys United States Department of
More informationIN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
1 1 1 Code CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO Nevada Attorney General HARRY B. WARD Deputy Attorney General Nevada State Bar No. 1 0 North Carson Street Carson City, Nevada 01 Telephone: ( - Fax: ( -1 Email: hward@ag.nv.gov
More informationUNITED 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 informationENR Case Notes, Vol. 32 Recent Environmental Cases and Rules
ENR Case Notes, Vol. 32 Recent Environmental Cases and Rules Environmental and Natural Resources Section Oregon State Bar Devin Franklin, Editor February 2018 Editor s Note: This issue contains selected
More informationCase 1:05-cv RCL Document 51 Filed 06/29/2006 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:05-cv-01182-RCL Document 51 Filed 06/29/2006 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HAWAI I ORCHID GROWERS ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 05-1182 (RCL
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KOOTENAI TRIBE OF IDAHO; BOISE COUNTY, by and through the Boise County Board of Commissioners; VALLEY COUNTY, by and through the Valley
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
Case 4:14-cv-00007-EJL Document 40 Filed 01/17/14 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO RALPH MAUGHAN, DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE, WESTERN WATERSHEDS PROJECT, WILDERNESS WATCH,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION, IDAHO CV 01-640-RE (Lead Case) WILDLIFE FEDERATION, WASHINGTON CV 05-23-RE WILDLIFE FEDERATION, SIERRA CLUB,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE I. INTRODUCTION
Terrell v. Costco Wholesale Corporation Doc. 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 1 1 1 JULIUS TERRELL, Plaintiff, v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORP., Defendant. CASE NO. C1-JLR
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :-cv-0-jls-jma Document Filed // Page of Bradley Bledsoe Downes (CA SBN: ) BLEDSOE DOWNES, PC 0 East Thistle Landing Drive Suite 00 Phoenix, AZ 0 T: 0.. F: 0.. bdownes@bdrlaw.com Attorney for Defendant-in-Intervention
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:13-cv-09046-PA-AGR Document 105 Filed 05/11/15 Page 1 of 8 Page ID #:3542 Present: The Honorable PERCY ANDERSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Stephen Montes Kerr N/A N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA SHELL GULF OF MEXICO, INC., and SHELL OFFSHORE, INC., vs. Plaintiffs, CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, INC., et al., Case No. 3:12-cv-0096-RRB
More informationSupreme 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 informationEnvironmental Group Lacks Standing to Bring Suit Against Forest Service
Environmental Group Lacks Standing to Bring Suit Against Forest Service A federal court has dismissed a lawsuit brought by an environmental group against the United States Forest Service (Forest Service)
More informationFederal Procedure - Standing to Sue in Environmental Protection Suits. Sierra Club v. Hickel, 433 F.2d 24 (9th Cir. 1970)
William & Mary Law Review Volume 12 Issue 3 Article 16 Federal Procedure - Standing to Sue in Environmental Protection Suits. Sierra Club v. Hickel, 433 F.2d 24 (9th Cir. 1970) Richard C. Josephson Repository
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA NORTHERN ALASKA ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER, et al., v. Plaintiffs, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-00030-SLG
More informationCase 4:18-cv KGB-DB-BSM Document 14 Filed 03/02/18 Page 1 of 6 FILED
Case 4:18-cv-00116-KGB-DB-BSM Document 14 Filed 03/02/18 Page 1 of 6 FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS MARO 2 2018 ~A~E,5 gormack, CLERK y DEPCLERK IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
More informationCase 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 informationENR Case Notes, Vol. 34 Recent Environmental Cases and Rules
ENR Case Notes, Vol. 34 Recent Environmental Cases and Rules Environmental and Natural Resources Section Oregon State Bar Devin Franklin, Editor July 2018 Editor s Note: This issue contains selected summaries
More informationNos , IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Nos. 05-16975, 05-17078 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
More informationKaruk Tribe of California v. United States Forest Service
Public Land and Resources Law Review Volume 0 Fall 2011 Case Summaries Karuk Tribe of California v. United States Forest Service Alexa Sample Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.umt.edu/plrlr
More informationCase 2:09-cv HA Document 112 Filed 04/24/12 Page 1 of 15 Page ID#: 1128 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
Case 2:09-cv-00152-HA Document 112 Filed 04/24/12 Page 1 of 15 Page ID#: 1128 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PENDLETON DIVISION LOREN STOUT and PIPER STOUT, Plaintiffs, Case No.
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Plaintiff, Defendants.
Case :-cv-000-h-dhb Document Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 0 0 SKYLINE WESLEYAN CHURCH, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF MANAGED HEALTH CARE, et al., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Plaintiff,
More informationCase 2:17-cv SU Document 52 Filed 02/02/18 Page 1 of 11
Case 2:17-cv-01004-SU Document 52 Filed 02/02/18 Page 1 of 11 Oliver J. H. Stiefel, OSB # 135436 Tel: (503) 227-2212 oliver@crag.org Christopher G. Winter, OSB # 984355 Tel: (503) 525-2725 chris@crag.org
More informationJusticiability: 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 informationNos , 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 informationNo 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 informationCase 1:13-cv RBW Document 32 Filed 10/17/14 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:13-cv-01176-RBW Document 32 Filed 10/17/14 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CASE NEW HOLLAND, INC., and CNH AMERICA LLC, Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-01176
More informationUNITED 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 informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA GREAT FALLS DIVISION SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER REGARDING PERMANENT INJUNCTION
Case 4:17-cv-00031-BMM Document 232 Filed 12/07/18 Page 1 of 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA GREAT FALLS DIVISION INDIGENOUS ENVIRONMENTAL NETWORK and NORTH COAST RIVER
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiffs,
Case :-cv-0-spl Document Filed 0// Page of 0 0 Hopi Tribe, et al., vs. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Before the Court are Defendant Central Arizona Water Conservation
More information806 F.Supp. 225 BACKGROUND
806 F.Supp. 225 HAWAII'S THOUSAND FRIENDS, LIFE OF THE LAND, INC., James E. Hearst, Betty Hearst, John Weil, Victoria Creed, Richard A. Wheelock, Patricia Bostwick, Patrick Tane, Philip M. Tansey, and
More informationCase 3:16-cv WHO Document 60 Filed 11/16/16 Page 1 of 20
Case :-cv-0-who Document 0 Filed // Page of 0 0 0 JOHN C. CRUDEN, Assistant Attorney General Environment & Natural Resources Division SETH M. BARSKY, Chief S. JAY GOVINDAN, Assistant Chief ROBERT P. WILLIAMS,
More informationCase 4:17-cv JSW Document 39 Filed 03/21/18 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :-cv-0-jsw Document Filed 0// Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 0 PINEROS Y CAMPESINOS UNIDOS DEL NOROESTE, et al., v. Plaintiffs, E. SCOTT PRUITT, et al., Defendants.
More informationLujan v. Defenders of Wildlife
504 U.S. 555 (1992) JUSTICE SCALIA delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II, III-A, and IV, and an opinion with respect to Part III-B, in which THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE WHITE, and
More informationCase 3:18-cv RS Document 34 Filed 08/21/18 Page 1 of 14
Case :-cv-0-rs Document Filed 0// Page of 0 CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH, et al., v. Plaintiffs, SONNY PERDUE, et al., Defendants. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA I. INTRODUCTION
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 16-605 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- TOWN OF CHESTER,
More informationCase 1:99-cv GK Document 5565 Filed 07/22/2005 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:99-cv-02496-GK Document 5565 Filed 07/22/2005 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : Civil Action No. 99-2496 (GK)
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI CENTRAL DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI CENTRAL DIVISION ASSOCIATION OF COMMUNITY ) ORGANIZATIONS FOR REFORM ) NOW et al., ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Case No. 08-CV-4084-NKL
More informationCase 7:18-cv DC Document 18 Filed 03/16/18 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MIDLAND/ODESSA DIVISION
Case 7:18-cv-00034-DC Document 18 Filed 03/16/18 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MIDLAND/ODESSA DIVISION EMPOWER TEXANS, INC., Plaintiff, v. LAURA A. NODOLF, in her official
More informationPit River Tribe v. U.S. Forest Service
Public Land and Resources Law Review Volume 0 Case Summaries 2010-2011 Pit River Tribe v. U.S. Forest Service Matt Newman Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umt.edu/plrlr Recommended
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR LANE COUNTY. Petitioners, Respondent.
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR LANE COUNTY CASCADIA WILDLANDS, et al., 1 vs. Petitioners, OREGON DEPARTMENT OF STATE LANDS, Respondent. Case No. MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR TEMPORARY
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Case :-cv-0-jat Document Filed Page of 0 WO IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Dina Galassini, No. CV--0-PHX-JAT Plaintiff, ORDER v. Town of Fountain Hills, et al., Defendants.
More informationIn The Supreme Court of the United States
No. 10-708 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- FIRST AMERICAN
More informationCase 9:17-cv DLC Document 251 Filed 08/30/18 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MONTANA, MISSOULA DIVISION
Case 9:17-cv-00089-DLC Document 251 Filed 08/30/18 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MONTANA, MISSOULA DIVISION CROW INDIAN TRIBE, ET AL., v. Plaintiffs, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
More informationUNITED 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 informationCase 3:10-cv SI Document 68 Filed 09/04/12 Page 1 of 29 Page ID#: 935
Case 3:10-cv-01397-SI Document 68 Filed 09/04/12 Page 1 of 29 Page ID#: 935 R. Scott Jerger, Oregon State Bar #02337 Field Jerger LLP 621 SW Morrison Street, Suite 1225 Portland, OR 97205 Tel: (503) 228-9115
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA EASTERN DIVISION
Case :-cv-00-jgb-sp Document Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: 0 0 ROBERT G. DREHER Acting Assistant Attorney General Environment and Natural Resources Division United States Department of Justice F. PATRICK
More informationCase 1:18-cv LY Document 32-2 Filed 06/25/18 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION
Case 1:18-cv-00295-LY Document 32-2 Filed 06/25/18 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION COMMUNITY FINANCIAL SERVICES ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, LTD., and CONSUMER
More informationCase 3:16-cv RJB Document 110 Filed 12/14/17 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA
Case :-cv-0-rjb Document 0 Filed // Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA ROBERT REGINALD COMENOUT, SR. and EDWARD AMOS COMENOUT III, v. Plaintiffs, REILLY PITTMAN,
More informationCase 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 informationINTRODUCTION. advisement. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant the motion filed
Case 4:16-cv-00012-BLW Document 52 Filed 01/18/17 Page 1 of 24 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO WILDERNESS WATCH, FRIENDS OF THE CLEARWATER, and WESTERN WATERSHEDS PROJECT Plaintiffs,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION
Case 8:17-cv-00618-SDM-MAP Document 78 Filed 12/14/17 Page 1 of 15 PageID 1232 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, et al., Plaintiffs,
More informationCase 5:14-cv JPB Document 71 Filed 03/27/15 Page 1 of 18 PageID #: 487
Case 5:14-cv-00039-JPB Document 71 Filed 03/27/15 Page 1 of 18 PageID #: 487 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA Wheeling MURRAY ENERGY CORPORATION, MURRAY AMERICAN
More informationAn Overview of Citizen Suits Affecting the Mineral and Energy Industries
Chapter 7 Cite as 20 Energy & Min. L. Inst. ch. 7 (2000) An Overview of Citizen Suits Affecting the Mineral and Energy Industries Timothy W. Gresham 1 Eric R. Thiessen 2 Penn, Stuart & Eskridge Abingdon,
More informationCase4:09-cv SBA Document42 Document48 Filed12/17/09 Filed02/01/10 Page1 of 7
Case:0-cv-00-SBA Document Document Filed//0 Filed0/0/0 Page of 0 0 BAY AREA LEGAL AID LISA GREIF, State Bar No. NAOMI YOUNG, State Bar No. 00 ROBERT P. CAPISTRANO, State Bar No. 0 Telegraph Avenue Oakland,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CHRISTOPHER STOLLER and MICHAEL STOLLER, Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 15-1703 (RMC OCWEN FINANCIAL CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM
More informationFILED FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED APR 2 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION; IDAHO WILDLIFE FEDERATION; WASHINGTON WILDLIFE
More informationCase Nos , , and UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 14-17493, 07/29/2016, ID: 10068953, DktEntry: 73, Page 1 of 22 Case Nos. 14-17493, 14-17506, 14-17515 and 14-17539 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SAN LUIS & DELTA-MENDOTA WATER
More informationAdministrative Record
ESA Implementation: Administrative Record Red-cockaded Woodpecker Cyanea superba Gopher Tortoise Photo Courtesy of USFWS 1 Overview What is the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)? What is the role of the
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA BILLINGS DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case 1:16-cv-00011-BMM Document 45 Filed 03/29/16 Page 1 of 12 Mark A. Echo Hawk (pro hac vice ECHO HAWK & OLSEN, PLLC 505 Pershing Ave., Suite 100 PO Box 6119 Pocatello, Idaho 83205-6119 Phone: (208 478-1624
More information[ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR FEBRUARY 16, 2012] No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
USCA Case #11-5205 Document #1358116 Filed: 02/13/2012 Page 1 of 16 [ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR FEBRUARY 16, 2012] No. 11-5205 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
More informationARcare d/b/a Parkin Drug Store v. Qiagen North American Holdings, Inc. CV PA (ASx)
Page 1 ARcare d/b/a Parkin Drug Store v. Qiagen North American Holdings, Inc. CV 16-7638 PA (ASx) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8344 January
More information) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF. Plaintiffs. vs.
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Marc D. Fink, pro hac vice application pending Center for Biological Diversity 1 Robinson Street Duluth, Minnesota 0 Tel: 1--; Fax: 1-- mfink@biologicaldiversity.org Neil Levine, pro hac
More informationENR Case Notes, Vol. 30 Recent Environmental Cases and Rules
ENR Case Notes, Vol. 30 Recent Environmental Cases and Rules Environmental and Natural Resources Section Oregon State Bar Devin Franklin, Editor July 2017 Editor s Note: This issue contains selected summaries
More informationMarch 13, 2017 ORDER. Background
United States Department of the Interior Office of Hearings and Appeals Interior Board of Land Appeals 801 N. Quincy St., Suite 300 Arlington, VA 22203 703-235-3750 703-235-8349 (fax) March 13, 2017 2017-75
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION
Case 3:10-cv-01936-M Document 24 Filed 07/20/11 Page 1 of 11 PageID 177 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE SERVICING, INC., v. Plaintiff,
More informationNo IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 15-17189, 12/22/2017, ID: 10702386, DktEntry: 79-1, Page 1 of 18 No. 15-17189 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NO CASINO IN PLYMOUTH and CITIZENS EQUAL RIGHTS ALLIANCE,
More informationCase 2:16-cv TLN-AC Document 28 Filed 03/04/19 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :-cv-0-tln-ac Document Filed 0/0/ Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 0 CAL-PAC RANCHO CORDOVA, LLC, dba PARKWEST CORDOVA CASINO; CAPITOL CASINO, INC.; LODI CARDROOM,
More informationPresent: Hassell, C.J., Lacy, Keenan, Koontz, Lemons, and Agee, JJ., and Russell, S.J.
Present: Hassell, C.J., Lacy, Keenan, Koontz, Lemons, and Agee, JJ., and Russell, S.J. PHILIP MORRIS USA INC. v. Record No. 060858 THE CHESAPEAKE BAY FOUNDATION, INC. OPINION BY JUSTICE LAWRENCE L. KOONTZ,
More informationBiological Opinions for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta: A Case Law Summary
Biological Opinions for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta: A Case Law Kristina Alexander Legislative Attorney January 23, 2012 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Congressional
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF THE UNITED STATES MOTION TO DISMISS CONTENTS
Case 1:13-cv-00732-JDB Document 11 Filed 09/01/13 Page 1 of 20 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ) ETHICS IN WASHINGTON ) ) Plaintiff, ) )
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA
Case :-cv-0-bhs Document Filed 0// Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA JOSE SANCHEZ, ISMAEL RAMOS CONTRERAS, and ERNEST FRIMES, on behalf of themselves and all
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
0 0 KEVIN V. RYAN, United States Attorney (SBN JAMES CODA, Assistant United States Attorney (SBN 0 (WI Northern District of California 0 Golden Gate Ave., Box 0 San Francisco, CA 0 THOMAS SANSONETTI, Assistant
More informationIn The Supreme Court of the United States
No. 10-708 In The Supreme Court of the United States FIRST AMERICAN FINANCIAL CORPORATION AND FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioners, v. DENISE P. EDWARDS, Respondent. On Writ of Certiorari
More informationCase 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 04/12/18 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:18-cv-00862 Document 1 Filed 04/12/18 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, 378 N. Main Avenue Tucson, AZ 85701, v. Plaintiff, RYAN
More informationC.A. No D. Ct. No. CV PCT-GMS UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. BLACK MESA WATER COALITION, et al.
Case: 12-16980 03/18/2013 ID: 8554601 DktEntry: 12 Page: 1 of 48 C.A. No. 12-16980 D. Ct. No. CV-11-8122-PCT-GMS UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BLACK MESA WATER COALITION, et al.,
More informationNOTE CWA AND ESA: NINE IS A PARTY, TEN IS A CROWD NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOME BUILDERS V. DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE, 127 S. CT (2007).
NOTE CWA AND ESA: NINE IS A PARTY, TEN IS A CROWD NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOME BUILDERS V. DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE, 127 S. CT. 2518 (2007). Malori Dahmen* I. Introduction... 703 II. Overview of Statutory
More informationFollow this and additional works at: Part of the Law Commons
Case Western Reserve Law Review Volume 22 Issue 4 1971 Recent Case: Environmental Law - Highway Construction through Public Parks - Judicial Review [Citizens to Preserve Overton Partk, Inc. v. Volpe 401
More informationMinard Run Oil Company v. United States Forest Service
Public Land and Resources Law Review Volume 0 Fall 2011 Case Summaries Minard Run Oil Company v. United States Forest Service Bradley R. Jones University of Montana School of Law Follow this and additional
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit No. 17-2413 Colleen M. Auer, lllllllllllllllllllllplaintiff - Appellant, v. Trans Union, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, llllllllllllllllllllldefendant,
More informationIN 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 informationUNITED 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 informationEzekiel Rediker (pro hac vice) REED SMITH LLP 1301 K St. N.W. Washington, DC Tel. No. (202)
Case :0-cv-00-KJM-KJN Document Filed 0// Page of 0 Ezekiel Rediker (pro hac vice) 0 K St. N.W. Washington, DC 00 Tel. No. () -0 erediker@reedsmith.com Attorney for the Winnemem Wintu Tribe WINNEMEM WINTU
More information