Center for Biological Diversity v. Badgley case brief
335 F.3d 1097
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
CASE SYNOPSIS: Plaintiffs,
non-profit environmental groups, appealed a judgment from the United
States District Court for the District of Oregon, which entered
summary judgment in favor of defendant, the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS), in plaintiffs' suit claiming a violation of
the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16 U.S.C.S. §§ 1531-1544, by
making an erroneous, arbitrary, and capricious determination that the
Northern Goshawk was not endangered.
FACTS: FWS assembled a team of wildlife biologists with special expertise in the area of goshawks to conduct a status review. The administrative record indicated the status review team conducted a comprehensive review of scientific published and unpublished literature, peer reviews, and raw data in making their report. Based on the status review team's report, FWS determined that the best available scientific and commercial data did not indicate the goshawk population was endangered or threatened. In the absence of evidence that the goshawk was endangered or likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future, FWS's decision was not arbitrary or capricious. The court held that FWS's determination was amply supported by evidence in the record.
CONCLUSION: The judgment was affirmed.
FACTS: FWS assembled a team of wildlife biologists with special expertise in the area of goshawks to conduct a status review. The administrative record indicated the status review team conducted a comprehensive review of scientific published and unpublished literature, peer reviews, and raw data in making their report. Based on the status review team's report, FWS determined that the best available scientific and commercial data did not indicate the goshawk population was endangered or threatened. In the absence of evidence that the goshawk was endangered or likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future, FWS's decision was not arbitrary or capricious. The court held that FWS's determination was amply supported by evidence in the record.
CONCLUSION: The judgment was affirmed.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
No comments:
Post a Comment