Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Hawksbill Sea Turtle v. Federal Emergency Management Agency

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Decided September 22, 1997No. 96-7661Unknown

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

*557ROTH,

concurring and dissenting

Although the majority engages in a thoughtful discussion of the issues presented in this appeal, I cannot join the conclusion that the plaintiffs' Endangered Species Act (ESA) claims brought on behalf of the Hawksbill and Green Sea Turtles do not satisfy the notice requirements of § 11(g) of the ESA, 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g). Accordingly, I would not dismiss the claims brought on behalf of the Sea Turtles. In addition, because I would not dismiss these claims, I have gone on to consider the district's court order refusing plaintiffs' application for a temporary…

2Cases cited14 opinions

Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1975
Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1988
Hallstrom v. Tillamook CountySupreme Court of the United States · 1990
Karl R. Smith v. Pittsburgh Gage and Supply CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1972
Bunker Ramo Corporation, a Delaware Corporation v. United Business Forms, Inc., an Illinois Corporation, and Edward M. Reif, and Marvin H. CywanCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1983

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.