Legal Opinion
McKenzie Flyfishers v. McIntosh
District Court, D. Oregon
Decided January 22, 2016No. Case No. 6:13-cv-02125-TCPublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER
COFFIN, Magistrate Judge:
Presently before the court is plaintiffs’ McKenzie Flyfishers et al. (“McKenzie Flyfishers”) Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (ECF 138). For the reasons stated below, plaintiffs’ motion is granted in part and denied in part.
BACKGROUND
On December 2, 2013, plaintiffs filed suit against defendants, the Army Corps of Engineers (the “Corps”) and Bruce McIntosh et al. (“ODFW” or “state defendants”), under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Pis’ First Am. Compl. ¶ 20. Plaintiffs asserted the Corps’ ownership, and ODFWs’ operation, of the McKenzie Hatchery…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Hensley v. EckerhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Blum v. StensonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens' Council for Clean AirSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Camacho v. Bridgeport Financial, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2008
- Moreno v. City of SacramentoCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2008
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- League of Wilderness Defenders/Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project v. TurnerDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 2018
- Rapp v. NaphCare IncDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 2023
- Studio 010 Inc v. Digital Cashflow LLCDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 2024