§Why CasetextPricing

Center for Food Safety et al v. Connor et al

Memorandum in Opposition re MOTION for Preliminary Injunction

55 Cited authorities

  1. Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc.

    555 U.S. 7 (2008)   Cited 16,785 times   56 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a plaintiff must establish "that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm"

  2. Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc.

    528 U.S. 167 (2000)   Cited 7,153 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plaintiffs who curtailed their recreational activities on a river due to reasonable concerns about the effect of pollutant discharges into that river had standing

  3. Summers v. Earth Island Inst.

    555 U.S. 488 (2009)   Cited 3,001 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that supplementation of the district court record to receive affidavits from the organization's members was not permitted "in the circumstances here: after the trial is over, judgment has been entered, and a notice of appeal has been filed"

  4. Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council

    490 U.S. 360 (1989)   Cited 2,003 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that courts must defer to the "informed discretion" of federal agencies where the agencies’ decisions require "a high level of technical expertise" (quoting Kleppe v. Sierra Club , 427 U.S. 390, 412, 96 S.Ct. 2718, 49 L.Ed.2d 576 (1976) )

  5. Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner

    387 U.S. 136 (1967)   Cited 5,286 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plaintiffs subject to a regulation had standing to challenge it even though the Attorney General had yet to "authorize criminal and seizure actions for violations of the statute"

  6. Amoco Production Co. v. Gambell

    480 U.S. 531 (1987)   Cited 2,085 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a District Court did not err in declining to issue an injunction to bar exploratory drilling on Alaskan public lands, because the district court's decision "did not undermine" the policy of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, 16 U.S.C. § 3120, and because the Secretary of the Interior had other means of meaningfully complying with the statute

  7. Horne v. Flores

    557 U.S. 433 (2009)   Cited 670 times
    Holding injunction mandating sweeping changes to Texas's foster care system overly broad

  8. Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo

    456 U.S. 305 (1982)   Cited 1,768 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Federal Water Pollution Control Act did not mandate injunctions against its violation

  9. Califano v. Yamasaki

    442 U.S. 682 (1979)   Cited 1,979 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claimants could bring social security class action "at least so long as the membership of the class is limited to those who meet the requirements of § 205(g)"

  10. Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.

    462 U.S. 87 (1983)   Cited 1,149 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "a reviewing court must generally be at its most deferential" when examining an agency decision made "within its area of special expertise, at the frontiers of science"

  11. Section 4321 - Congressional declaration of purpose

    42 U.S.C. § 4321   Cited 3,499 times   30 Legal Analyses
    Describing the purposes of NEPA as including "encourag[ing] productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment"

  12. Section 6501 - Purposes

    7 U.S.C. § 6501   Cited 59 times   17 Legal Analyses

    It is the purpose of this chapter- (1) to establish national standards governing the marketing of certain agricultural products as organically produced products; (2) to assure consumers that organically produced products meet a consistent standard; and (3) to facilitate interstate commerce in fresh and processed food that is organically produced. 7 U.S.C. § 6501 Pub. L. 101-624, title XXI, §21022102,, 104 Stat. 3935. STATUTORY NOTES AND RELATED SUBSIDIARIES SHORT TITLE Pub. L. 101-624, title XXI

  13. Section 6504 - National standards for organic production

    7 U.S.C. § 6504   Cited 20 times   2 Legal Analyses

    To be sold or labeled as an organically produced agricultural product under this chapter, an agricultural product shall- (1) have been produced and handled without the use of synthetic chemicals, except as otherwise provided in this chapter; (2) except as otherwise provided in this chapter and excluding livestock, not be produced on land to which any prohibited substances, including synthetic chemicals, have been applied during the 3 years immediately preceding the harvest of the agricultural products;

  14. Section 6514 - Accreditation program

    7 U.S.C. § 6514   Cited 11 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Setting forth requirements for accreditation as applicable to both State officials and "private person"

  15. Section 6513 - Organic plan

    7 U.S.C. § 6513   Cited 10 times
    Bearing the title "Livestock plan," and providing "An organic livestock plan shall contain ..."

  16. Section 205.100 - What has to be certified

    7 C.F.R. § 205.100   Cited 7 times   1 Legal Analyses

    (a) Except for the exempt operations described in § 205.101 , each operation or portion of an operation that produces or handles agricultural products intended to be sold, labeled, or represented as "100 percent organic," "organic," or "made with organic (specified ingredients or food group(s))" must be certified according to the provisions of subpart E of this part and must meet all other applicable requirements of this part. (b) Any production or handling operation or specified portion of a production

  17. Section 205.202 - Land requirements

    7 C.F.R. § 205.202   Cited 4 times

    Any field or farm parcel from which harvested crops are intended to be sold, labeled, or represented as "organic," must: (a) Have been managed in accordance with the provisions of §§ 205.203 through 205.206 ; (b) Have had no prohibited substances, as listed in § 205.105 , applied to it for a period of 3 years immediately preceding harvest of the crop; and (c) Have distinct, defined boundaries and buffer zones such as runoff diversions to prevent the unintended application of a prohibited substance

  18. Section 205.405 - Denial of certification

    7 C.F.R. § 205.405   Cited 3 times

    (a) When the certifying agent has reason to believe, based on a review of the information specified in § 205.402 or § 205.404 , that an applicant for certification is not able to comply or is not in compliance with the requirements of this part, the certifying agent must provide a written notification of noncompliance to the applicant. When correction of a noncompliance is not possible, a notification of noncompliance and a notification of denial of certification may be combined in one notification

  19. Section 205.401 - Application for certification

    7 C.F.R. § 205.401   Cited 1 times

    A person seeking certification of a production or handling operation under this subpart must submit an application for certification to a certifying agent. The application must include the following information: (a) An organic production or handling system plan, as required in § 205.201 ; (b) The name of the person completing the application; the applicant's business name, address, and telephone number; and, when the applicant is a corporation, the name, address, and telephone number of the person