§Why CasetextPricing

South Fork Band Council of Western Shoshone of Nevada, et al vs U.S Department of Interior, et al

MOTION Motion for Entry of an Appropriately Tailored Preliminary Injunction and Memorandum in Support Thereof

10 Cited authorities

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

    555 U.S. 7 (2008)   Cited 16,777 times   56 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a plaintiff must establish "that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm"

  2. 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

  3. Lands Council v. McNair

    537 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2008)   Cited 700 times
    Holding that the Forest Service did not act arbitrarily and capriciously by failing to verify its model with on-the-ground data

  4. Sierra Forest Legacy v. Rey

    577 F.3d 1015 (9th Cir. 2009)   Cited 234 times
    Concluding that the district court had the power to issue a narrow injunction specifically requested by plaintiffs

  5. South Fork v. U.S. Dept

    588 F.3d 718 (9th Cir. 2009)   Cited 67 times
    Holding that a failure to discuss mercury emissions from a nearby mining facility in an EIS was not excused by the fact that the facility "operate[d] pursuant to a state permit under the Clean Air Act," because " non-NEPA document ... cannot satisfy a federal agency's obligations under NEPA"

  6. Idaho Watersheds Project v. Hahn

    307 F.3d 815 (9th Cir. 2002)   Cited 76 times
    Holding that BLM's issuance of grazing permits constituted final agency action despite lack of alteration of BLM's legal regime

  7. N. Cheyenne Tribe v. Norton

    503 F.3d 836 (9th Cir. 2007)   Cited 58 times
    Affirming partial rather than blanket injunction requested by parties

  8. Nelson v. National Aeronautics

    568 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir. 2009)   Cited 15 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a serious legal question had been raised in inquiring whether the government has the right to violate employee privacy

  9. South Fork Band v. U.S. Department of Interior

    643 F. Supp. 2d 1192 (D. Nev. 2009)   Cited 4 times

    No. 3:08-CV-00616-LRH-RAM. February 3, 2009. Roger Flynn, Jeffrey C. Parsons, Lyons, CO, Henry Egghart, Reno, NV, for Plaintiffs. Donna S. Fitzgerald, Sara E. Costello, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Francis M. Wikstrom, Jeffrey J. Droubay, Michael L. Larsen, Michael R. McCarthy, II, Parsons Behle Latimer, Salt Lake City, UT, Jim Butler, Parsons Behle Latimer, Reno, NV, for Defendants. ORDER LARRY R. HICKS, District Judge. Presently before the court is Plaintiffs South Forth Band Council

  10. Sierra Forest Legacy v. Rey

    670 F. Supp. 2d 1106 (E.D. Cal. 2009)   Cited 3 times

    No. 2:05-cv-00205-MCE-GGH, No. 2:05-cv-00211-MCE-GGH. November 4, 2009. Gregory Cahill Loarie, Michael Ramsey Sherwood, Earthjustice, Oakland, CA, Patrick Gallagher, Sierra Club Environmental Law Program, David Brian Edelson, The Wilderness Society, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff. Barclay Thomas Samford, United States Dept. of Justice, Denver, CO, David Taylor Shelledy, U.S. Attorney's Office, Sacramento, CA, Cynthia Sue Huber, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Natural Resources Section, Department of Justice