Fund for Animals, Inc. v. Rice case brief summary
85 F.3d 535 (1996)
CASE FACTS
Plaintiff environmentalists brought an action to prevent construction of a municipal landfill on a site that plaintiffs claimed was an indispensable habitat for the Florida panther and home to the Eastern indigo snake. The trial court granted defendant federal agencies' motion for summary judgment. The court affirmed.
DISCUSSION
The court affirmed the order that granted defendant federal agencies' motion for summary judgment in plaintiff environmentalists' bid to prevent the construction of a municipal landfill. The court held that defendants' actions were not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. The court remanded for reconsideration of improvident and unnecessary language used by the trial court when denying plaintiffs' motion for discovery.
Recommended Supplements for Administrative Law
Examples & Explanations: Administrative Law, Fourth Edition
Administrative Law and Process: In a Nutshell (Nutshell Series)
85 F.3d 535 (1996)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Plaintiff environmentalists appealed
after the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida granted defendant federal agencies' motion for summary
judgment in plaintiffs' bid to halt construction of a municipal
landfill. Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.S. § 706(2)(A);
Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. S. §§ 1251-1387; National
Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C.S. § 4332(2)(C); Endangered
Species Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1534-44.CASE FACTS
Plaintiff environmentalists brought an action to prevent construction of a municipal landfill on a site that plaintiffs claimed was an indispensable habitat for the Florida panther and home to the Eastern indigo snake. The trial court granted defendant federal agencies' motion for summary judgment. The court affirmed.
DISCUSSION
- The court held that defendants' actions were not an abuse of discretion, arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Administrative Procedure Act.
- The court held that defendants had taken into account all the considerations that factored into the alternatives analysis, fully considered all pertinent cumulative impacts, and reasonably concluded that an additional public hearing was not needed. Clean Water Act.
- The court held that defendants reasonably concluded that preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement was unnecessary.
- The court held that it had not been determined that the site was a critical habitat.
- The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying discovery.
The court affirmed the order that granted defendant federal agencies' motion for summary judgment in plaintiff environmentalists' bid to prevent the construction of a municipal landfill. The court held that defendants' actions were not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. The court remanded for reconsideration of improvident and unnecessary language used by the trial court when denying plaintiffs' motion for discovery.
Recommended Supplements for Administrative Law
Examples & Explanations: Administrative Law, Fourth Edition
Administrative Law and Process: In a Nutshell (Nutshell Series)
No comments:
Post a Comment