Legal Opinion
Siskiyou Regional Education Project v. Rose
District Court, D. Oregon
Decided December 13, 1999No. Civ. 98-3069-COPublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
HOGAN, District Judge.
Magistrate Judge John P. Cooney filed Findings and Recommendation on June 24, 1999, recommending that this comet grant in part and deny in part defendant’s motion for summary judgment (# 22), and grant in part and deny in part plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment (# 25). The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). When either party objects to any portion of a magistrate judge’s Findings and Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the magistrate judge’s report. See…
2Cases cited45 opinions
- Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. VolpeSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources CouncilSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- County of Los Angeles v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
- McDonnell Douglas Corporation v. Commodore Business MacHines Inc. And Commodore Business MacHines (Canada) LimitedCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1981
40 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Siskiyou Regional Education Project v. United States Forest ServiceCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2009
- Karuk Tribe of California v. United States Forest ServiceDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2005
- Karuk Tribe v. United States Forest ServiceCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2011
- Oregon Natural Resources Council Fund v. ForsgrenDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 2003
- Olympic Forest Coalition v. United States Forest ServiceDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 2008
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.