§Why CasetextPricing

Yount v. Jewell et al

MOTION for Reconsideration re Order on Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

12 Cited authorities

  1. Marks v. United States

    430 U.S. 188 (1977)   Cited 2,105 times   31 Legal Analyses
    Holding that due process is violated if the trial court instructs the jury based on the current interpretation of a statute, rather than the interpretation that controlled at the time of the allegedly criminal acts

  2. INS v. Chadha

    462 U.S. 919 (1983)   Cited 1,250 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that there was "adequate Art. III adverseness" because the executive branch determined that a federal statute was unconstitutional and refused to defend it but simultaneously continued to abide by it

  3. Carroll v. Nakatani

    342 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2003)   Cited 1,164 times
    Holding that plaintiff failed to show injury in fact where he "failed to formulate even a basic business plan"

  4. Alaska Airlines, Inc. v. Brock

    480 U.S. 678 (1987)   Cited 348 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding legislative veto provision severable from Airline Deregulation Act of 1978

  5. Miller v. Albright

    523 U.S. 420 (1998)   Cited 221 times
    Holding that 8 U.S.C. § 1401(g) provides for citizenship at birth

  6. Shapiro v. Paradise Valley Unified

    374 F.3d 857 (9th Cir. 2004)   Cited 107 times
    Holding Buckhannon applies to the IDEA's attorneys' fees provision

  7. United States v. Midwest Oil Co.

    236 U.S. 459 (1915)   Cited 171 times
    Holding that presidential withdrawal of public lands was lawful because Congress had "uniformly and repeatedly acquiesced" to the President's creation of roughly 250 reservations

  8. Tavilla v. Cephalon, Inc.

    870 F. Supp. 2d 759 (D. Ariz. 2012)   Cited 15 times

    No. CV–11–00270–PHX–DGC. 2012-05-3 Nicolai TAVILLA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CEPHALON, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant. A.R.S. § 12–542 Richard T. Treon, Treon Aguirre Newman & Norris PA, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiffs. DAVID G. CAMPBELL Recognized as Unconstitutional A.R.S. § 12–542Richard T. Treon, Treon Aguirre Newman & Norris PA, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiffs. John F. Brenner, Pepper Hamilton LLP, Princeton, NJ, Kathleen Kelly Kahn, Stephen M. Bressler, Lewis & Roca LLP, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant

  9. City of New Haven, Conn. v. United States

    809 F.2d 900 (D.C. Cir. 1987)   Cited 10 times
    Holding that the challenged portion of section 1013 of the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 is so bound up in the whole scheme of section 1013 that the rest of the section cannot stand independently

  10. Section 1701 - Congressional declaration of policy

    43 U.S.C. § 1701   Cited 546 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded prudential standing as to the FLPMA due only to their "aesthetic and "recreational interest" in land

  11. Section 1714 - Withdrawals of lands

    43 U.S.C. § 1714   Cited 48 times
    Establishing procedures to be followed when the Interior Secretary “make, modif[ies], extend, or revoke withdrawals”

  12. Section 4.1 - Scope of authority; applicable regulations

    43 C.F.R. § 4.1   Cited 73 times
    Noting that the IBLA issues the final decision for the Department of Interior