Cases

Donald W. Molloy, District Judge INTRODUCTION Defendants the United States Forest Service, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and their official representatives (collectively "the agencies") move under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5) to dissolve the injunction against the Miller West Fisher Project ("Miller Project"). (Doc. 112.) The agencies argue that dissolving the injunction i

Dana L. Christensen, Chief Judge Before the Court is Plaintiff Alliance for the Wild Rockies's Motion to Vacate Record of Decision. (Doc. 93.) The motion is opposed by the Federal Defendants,1 the Defendant-Intervenors, and Amici the State of Montana and the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho. (Docs. 104, 105, 107, & 108.) Because this case presents the "rare circumstances" justifying remand without vacatur, t

ORDER Dana L. Christensen, Chief Judge Before the Court are cross-motions for summary judgment in this environmental case centered on the East Reservoir Forest Restoration Project southeast of Libby, Montana (“the Project”). For the reasons explained below, the Court grants the motions of Defendants and Defendant-Inter-venors and denies Plaintiffs motion. Background

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ALLIANCE FOR THE WILD No. 16-35589 ROCKIES, Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 9:15-cv-00054-DLC v. CHRISTOPHER SAVAGE, Kootenai OPINION National Forest Supervisor; FAYE KRUEGER, Regional Forester of Region One of the U.S. Forest Service; UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE, an agency of the U.S. Department of Agri

ORDER Dana L. Christensen, Chief Judge Before the Court is the motion for preliminary injunction of Plaintiffs Alliance for the Wild Rockies and Native Ecosystems Council (collectively “Plaintiffs”). Defendants Leanne Marten, Regional Forester for Region One of the United States Forest Service and the United States Forest Service (collectively “Defendants”) oppose the motion. As discussed below, the Court

LARRY R. HICKS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE *977Plaintiffs (collectively American Wild Horse Campaign or "AWHC")1 have filed a motion for summary judgment on all their claims against defendants (collectively Bureau of Land Management or "BLM"). (ECF No 32). BLM responded with its own motion for summary judgment on

Dana L. Christensen, Chief Judge Before the Court is Federal Defendants' Motion to Alter Judgment and Dissolve Injunction (Doc. 55). On May 24, 2013, this Court enjoined the Fleecer Mountains Project ("the Project") until the Forest Service and Fish and Wildlife Service ("FWS") corrected certain deficiencies under the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA") and the Endangered Species Act ("ESA") identified in this Court's remand

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSEPH RUDOLPH WOOD, III, No. 14-16310 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. v. 2:14-cv-01447- NVW-JFM CHARLES L. RYAN, Director of the Arizona Department of Corrections; et al., ORDER Defendants-Appellees.

FILED FOR PUBLICATION JUL 21 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSEPH RUDOLPH WOOD, III, No. 14-16310 Pla

640 F.3d 962 (2011) William Alexander LEIVA-PEREZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. No. 09-71636. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. April 1, 2011. *963 Richard Miyamoto, Phung, Miyamoto & Diaz, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, and Salman Alam, Newport Beach, CA, Appointed Pro Bono Amicus Curi

JAMES DONATO, United States District Judge Defendant Federal Emergency Management Agency ("FEMA") administers the National Flood Insurance Program ("NFIP"), which provides affordable federal flood insurance to property owners in participating communities. In 2016, FEMA published a biological evaluation to determine whether proposed revisions to NFIP would affect species and habitats protected under the Endangered Species Act,

William H. Orrick, United States District Judge INTRODUCTION This case addresses the burden a federal agency bears when it seeks to suspend a federal regulation for further analysis. Plaintiffs, the States of California and New Mexico, bring this action for a preliminary injunction enjoining the United States Bureau of Land Management ("BLM"), Katherine S. Macgregor, Acting Assistant Secretary for

OPINION and ORDER Donald W. Molloy, United States District Court Judge Plaintiffs Save Our Cabinets, Earthworks, and Defenders of the Wildlife (collectively “Plaintiffs”) seek declaratory and injunctive relief under the Endangered Species Act .(“ESA”), challenging determinations made by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (“Fish and Wildlife Service”) and the United States Forest Service (“Forest

771 F.Supp.2d 1266 (2011) SEATTLE MIDEAST AWARENESS CAMPAIGN, Plaintiff, v. KING COUNTY, Defendant. No. C11-94RAJ. United States District Court, W.D. Washington, at Seattle. February 18, 2011. *1268 Jeffrey C. Grant, Skellenger Bender, PS, Lindsey Sarah Soffes, Sarah A. Dunne, ACLU of Washington, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff. <

Lawrence J. O'Neill, UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE *473I. INTRODUCTION On March 12, 2018, Plaintiffs, a coalition of environmental interest groups led by the Natural Resources Defense Council ("NRDC"), filed the currently operative Sixth Supplemental Complaint ("6SC"), which includes numerous cl

KAREN LECRAFT HENDERSON, Circuit Judge, concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part. “To an imagination of any scope the most far-reaching form of power is not money, it is the command of ideas.” —Oliver Wendell Holmes, The Path of the Law, 10 Harv. L. Rev. 457, 478 (1897). I believe the statute before us is unconstitu

ACCEPTED 03-15-00348-CV 6616789 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS

Cateon, Ch. J. delivered the opinion of the court. í < On the 18th of November, 1833, the legislature of this State extended the civil jurisdiction of the counties of Marion, Hamilton, Rhea, IMPMinn and Monroe, so as by the extension of the limits of the several counties, to include the country within the occupancy of the Cherokee Indians, which lies within the boundary of the State of Tennessee. But

Cateon, Ch. J. delivered the opinion of the court. í < On the 18th of November, 1833, the legislature of this State extended the civil jurisdiction of the counties of Marion, Hamilton, Rhea, IMPMinn and Monroe, so as by the extension of the limits of the several counties, to include the country within the occupancy of the Cherokee Indians, which lies within the boundary of the State of Tennessee. But

Cateon, Ch. J. delivered the opinion of the court. í < On the 18th of November, 1833, the legislature of this State extended the civil jurisdiction of the counties of Marion, Hamilton, Rhea, IMPMinn and Monroe, so as by the extension of the limits of the several counties, to include the country within the occupancy of the Cherokee Indians, which lies within the boundary of the State of Tennessee. But