Idaho Watersheds Project v. Hahn

7 Citing briefs

  1. Center for Food Safety et al v. Connor et al

    Reply Memorandum Regarding Permanent Injunction

    Filed June 28, 2010

    The Court should give deference to APHIS’s proposed measures because of APHIS’s regulatory experience involving sugar beets, which makes the Agency well-suited to offer proposed conditions while it prepares an EIS, and because APHIS’s proposed conditions are based on the reasonable conclusions of its experts. See, e.g., Idaho Watersheds Proj., 307 F.3d at 831 (upholding district court’s decision to reject “drastic” remedy urged by plaintiffs and defer to agency expertise in adopting interim remedy crafted by the agency); see also Marsh v. Or. Natural Res. Council, 490 U.S. 360, 378 (1989) (“[W]hen specialists express conflicting views, an agency must have discretion to rely on the reasonable opinions of its own qualified experts.”)

  2. Center for Food Safety et al v. Connor et al

    Memorandum in Opposition re MOTION for Preliminary Injunction

    Filed February 12, 2010

    14/ APHIS’s proposal reflects the reasoned input of its experts regarding cross- pollination risks, and deserves the deference of the Court. See, e.g., Idaho Watersheds Proj. 307 F.3d at 831 (upholding district court’s decision to reject “drastic” remedy argued by plaintiffs and defer to agency expertise in adopting interim remedy crafted by the agency); see also Marsh v. Or. Natural Res. Council, 490 U.S. 360, 378 (1989); Balt.

  3. 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

    Filed January 25, 2010

    Lastly, in Idaho Watersheds Project v. Hahn, the Ninth Circuit approved the district court’s partial injunction of cattle grazing, that gave “due regard to protection of the environment and the welfare of the affected ranching families.” 307 F.3d at 835; see also Greater Yellowstone Coalition v. Timchak, Case No. 09-35478, Docket. No. 26 at 2, 7-8 (9th Cir. June 4, 2009) (considered the “significant interim economic harm and job loss,” including the layoff of 104 employees, when it lifted a temporary stay and denied an emergency motion to enjoin mining activities) (attached hereto as Exhibit 11); Nelson v. Nat’l Aeronautics & Space Admin., 568 F.3d 1028, 1030 n.6 (9th Cir. 2009) (“Clearly, the public interest in minimizing job loss in this difficult economic climate … weighs in favor of the injunction.”)

  4. Electronic Frontier Foundation v. Office of the Director of National Intelligence et al

    MOTION for Preliminary Injunction ; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction

    Filed February 29, 2008

    Furthermore, in deciding whether to grant the injunction, “the court must balance the equities between the parties and give due regard to the public interest.” Idaho Watersheds Project v. Hahn, 307 F.3d 815, 833 (9th Cir. 2002). In determining whether a preliminary injunction is proper, “[t]he district court is not required to make any binding findings of fact; it need only find probabilities that the necessary facts can be proved.”

  5. Electronic Frontier Foundation v. Office of the Director of National Intelligence

    MOTION for Preliminary Injunction ; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction

    Filed October 29, 2007

    Furthermore, in deciding whether to grant the injunction, “the court must balance the equities between the parties and give due regard to the public interest.” Idaho Watersheds Project v. Hahn, 307 F.3d 815, 833 (9th Cir. 2002). In determining whether a preliminary injunction is proper, “[t]he district court is not required to make any binding findings of fact; it need only find probabilities that the necessary facts can be proved.”

  6. Riverkeeper, Inc. et al v. United States Environmental Protection Agency et al

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 17 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction.. Document

    Filed March 9, 2007

    ¶ 11; Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 105 (1977) (“The obvious effect of this modification [to 28 U.S.C. § 1331], subject only to preclusion-of-review statutes created or retained by Congress, is to confer jurisdiction on federal courts to review agency action.”); Idaho Watersheds Project v. Hahn, 307 F.3d 815, 830 (9th Cir. 2002) (“In Califano v. Sanders … the Supreme Court settled a long standing controversy by holding that 28 U.S.C. § 1331, rather than the APA, confers jurisdiction on federal courts to review agency action”). 24 Case 2:06-cv-12987-PKC Document 27 Filed 03/09/2007 Page 26 of 27 Case 2:06-cv-12987-PKC Document 27 Filed 03/09/2007 Page 27 of 27

  7. Hepting et al v. AT&T Corp. et al

    MEMORANDUM in Support Motion for Preliminary Injunction; Plaintiffs' Amended Notice of Motion and Motion for Preliminary Injunction [REDACTED]

    Filed May 25, 2006

    ............................. 30 Page PLTFS’ AMENDED NOT OF MOT AND MOT FOR PRELIM INJUN; PLTFS’ MEM OF P & IN SUPPORT OF A MOT FOR PRELIM INJUN - C-06-00672-VRW - iv - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 George v. Carusone, 849 F. Supp. 159 (D. Conn. 1994)............................................................................16, 17 Gomez v. Vernon, 255 F.3d 1228 (9th Cir. 2001) ....................................................................................... 29 Hall v. EarthLink Network, Inc., 396 F.3d 500 (2d Cir. 2005) .......................................................................................... 16 Hodge v. Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Co., 555 F.2d 254 (9th Cir. 1977)......................................................................................... 13 Hoopa Valley Tribe v. Christie, 812 F.2d 1097 (9th Cir. 1987) ....................................................................................... 10 Idaho Watersheds Project v. Hahn, 307 F.3d 815 (9th Cir. 2002)......................................................................................... 10 Int'l Molders' and Allied Workers' Local Union No. 164 v. Nelson, 799 F.2d 547 (9th Cir. 1986)......................................................................................... 29 Jacobsen v. Rose, 592 F.2d 515 (9th Cir. 1978)....................................................................................17, 21 Jorgensen v. Cassiday, 320 F.3d 906 (9th Cir. 2003)......................................................................................... 32 Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967)................................................................................................passim Konop v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., 302 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1193 (2003).....................................................................15, 16, 18 Kootenai Tribe of Idaho v. Veneman, 313 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 2002) ..................................................