§Why CasetextPricing

Slawson Exploration Company, Inc. v. United States Department of the Interior et al

RESPONSE to Motion re MOTION to Dismiss

28 Cited authorities

  1. Ashcroft v. Iqbal

    556 U.S. 662 (2009)   Cited 254,433 times   279 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a claim is plausible where a plaintiff's allegations enable the court to draw a "reasonable inference" the defendant is liable

  2. Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation

    497 U.S. 871 (1990)   Cited 9,565 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to admit affidavits in support of standing when filed after summary judgment briefing and hearing were complete

  3. Bennett v. Spear

    520 U.S. 154 (1997)   Cited 3,699 times   35 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a Final Biological Opinion has "legal consequences," even though the action agency is not legally obligated to accept the opinion's recommendations or conclusions, because the opinion "alter the legal regime to which the action agency is subject"

  4. Christensen v. Harris County

    529 U.S. 576 (2000)   Cited 1,895 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Holding that agency interpretations contained in "policy statements, agency manuals, and enforcement guidelines, all of which lack the force of law do not warrant Chevron-style deference"

  5. Williamson Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank

    473 U.S. 172 (1985)   Cited 2,720 times   46 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “if a State provides an adequate procedure for seeking just compensation, the property owner cannot claim a violation of the Just Compensation Clause [of the United States Constitution] until it has used the procedure and been denied just compensation”

  6. Stone v. INS

    514 U.S. 386 (1995)   Cited 1,078 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the IJ's removal order and the Board's denial of a motion to reopen are “two separate final orders”

  7. Darby v. Cisneros

    509 U.S. 137 (1993)   Cited 546 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the APA’s judicial review statute "explicitly requires exhaustion of all intra-agency appeals mandated either by statute or by agency rule," but does not "require litigants to exhaust optional appeals as well"

  8. Air Courier Conference v. Postal Workers

    498 U.S. 517 (1991)   Cited 296 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that postal employees' interests were outside the zone of a statute giving the federal government a postal monopoly, because the "monopoly ... exists to ensure that postal services will be provided to the citizenry at large, and not to secure employment for postal workers"

  9. American Farm Lines v. Black Ball

    397 U.S. 532 (1970)   Cited 312 times
    Holding that regulations pertaining to application materials were promulgated to assist the agency in exercising its discretion, and not for the benefit of the applicants

  10. Iowa League of Cities v. Envtl. Prot. Agency

    711 F.3d 844 (8th Cir. 2013)   Cited 190 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that language expressing an agency's position that speaks in mandatory terms is "the type of language we have viewed as binding"

  11. Section 1331 - Federal question

    28 U.S.C. § 1331   Cited 97,806 times   136 Legal Analyses
    Finding that in order to invoke federal question jurisdiction, a plaintiff's claims must arise "under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States."

  12. Section 701 - Application; definitions

    5 U.S.C. § 701   Cited 9,398 times   36 Legal Analyses
    Adopting the definition given in Section 551

  13. Section 704 - Actions reviewable

    5 U.S.C. § 704   Cited 4,262 times   31 Legal Analyses
    Granting judicial review over " final agency action"

  14. Section 4.21 - General provisions

    43 C.F.R. § 4.21   Cited 88 times

    (a)Effect of decision pending appeal. Except as otherwise provided by law or other pertinent regulation: (1) A decision will not be effective during the time in which a person adversely affected may file a notice of appeal; when the public interest requires, however, the Director or an Appeals Board may provide that a decision, or any part of a decision, shall be in full force and effective immediately; (2) A decision will become effective on the day after the expiration of the time during which

  15. Section 3165.4 - Appeals

    43 C.F.R. § 3165.4   Cited 3 times

    (a)Appeal of decision of State Director. Any party adversely affected by the decision of the State Director after State Director review, under § 3165.3(b) of this title, of a notice of violation or assessment or of an instruction, order, or decision may appeal that decision to the Interior Board of Land Appeals pursuant to the regulations set out in part 4 of this title. (b)Appeal from decision on a proposed penalty after a hearing on the record. (1) Any party adversely affected by the decision of