Legal Opinion · Dissent

Mountain States Legal Foundation v. Hodel

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Decided August 22, 1986No. 82-1485Published

1DissentBarrett, Circuit Judge

I must respectfully dissent. I continue to adhere to the reasoning of the prior opinion by a panel of this court reversing and remanding the grant of summary judgment on the basis that wild free-roaming horses and burros are not “wild animals.” Mountain States Legal Foundation v. Clark, 740 F.2d 792 (10th Cir.1984), vacated sub nom. Mountain States Legal Foundation v. Hodel, 765 F.2d 1468 (10th Cir.1985). Assuming, however, that the animals protected under the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1331-1340 (the Act), are “wild animals,” I would nonetheless dissent from the…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
  2. Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
  3. Armstrong v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1960
  4. Connolly v. Pension Benefit Guaranty CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  5. Mountain States Legal Foundation v. ClarkCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1984

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

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API