§Why CasetextPricing

Center for Food Safety et al v. Connor et al

Reply Memorandum Regarding Permanent Injunction

39 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 7,155 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. Ebay Inc. v. Mercexchange, L. L. C.

    547 U.S. 388 (2006)   Cited 3,795 times   130 Legal Analyses
    Holding that traditional four-factor test applies to injunctions against patent infringement

  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. 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

  6. 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"

  7. Greater Yellowstone Coalition v. Flowers

    321 F.3d 1250 (10th Cir. 2003)   Cited 391 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a party who can show a significant risk of irreparable harm has demonstrated that the harm is not speculative

  8. Allied-Signal, v. U.S. Nuclear Reg. Com'n

    988 F.2d 146 (D.C. Cir. 1993)   Cited 342 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that in determining whether to vacate regulations that violate the APA, a court should consider “the seriousness of the [rule's] deficiencies (and thus the extent of doubt whether the agency chose correctly) and the disruptive consequences of an interim change that may itself be changed.”

  9. County of Los Angeles v. Shalala

    192 F.3d 1005 (D.C. Cir. 1999)   Cited 271 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that it was error for the district court to fashion a remedy for the agency to follow after declaring agency action unlawful

  10. In re Core Comm., Inc.

    531 F.3d 849 (D.C. Cir. 2008)   Cited 189 times
    Granting a writ of mandamus to force the FCC to issue a final appealable order

  11. Section 7712 - Regulation of movement of plants, plant products, biological control organisms, noxious weeds, articles, and means of conveyance

    7 U.S.C. § 7712   Cited 17 times

    (a) In general The Secretary may prohibit or restrict the importation, entry, exportation, or movement in interstate commerce of any plant, plant product, biological control organism, noxious weed, article, or means of conveyance, if the Secretary determines that the prohibition or restriction is necessary to prevent the introduction into the United States or the dissemination of a plant pest or noxious weed within the United States. (b) Policy The Secretary shall ensure that processes used in developing

  12. Section 1506.1 - Limitations on actions during NEPA process

    40 C.F.R. § 1506.1   Cited 88 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Requiring suspension of agency action if “the action is not covered by an existing program statement”

  13. Section 340.6 - Record retention, compliance, and enforcement

    7 C.F.R. § 340.6   Cited 7 times   1 Legal Analyses

    (a)Recordkeeping. Responsible persons and their agents are required to establish, keep, and make available to APHIS the following records: (1) Records and reports required under § 340.5(i) ; (2) Addresses and any other information (e.g., GPS coordinates, maps) needed to identify all locations where the organism under permit was stored or used, including all contained facilities and environmental release locations; (3) A copy of the APHIS permit authorizing the permitted activity; and (4) Legible

  14. Section 340.1 - Applicability of this part

    7 C.F.R. § 340.1   Cited 6 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Defining "release into the environment"