Legal Opinion
Harlan Land Co. v. U.S. Department of Agriculture
District Court, E.D. California
Decided September 27, 2001No. CV-F-00-6106 REC/LJOPublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, SUSPENDING ARGENTINE CITRUS RULE AND REMANDING TO APHIS (Docs. 31 & 36)
COYLE, District Judge.
On May 21, 2001, the court heard the parties’ Cross Motion for Summary Judgment.
Upon due consideration of the oral and written arguments and the record herein, plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is granted and defendants’ motion for summary judgment is denied for the reasons set forth herein.
I. Factual Background
In 1993, Argentina officially requested Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources CouncilSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Florida Power & Light Co. v. LorionSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Greenpeace Action v. FranklinCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1993
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Cactus Corner, LLC v. U.S. Dept. of AgricultureDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2004
- Ranchers Cattlemen Action Legal Fund United Stockgrowers v. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal & Plant Health Inspection ServiceDistrict Court, D. Montana · 2005
- US Citrus Sci. Council v. U.S. Dep't of Agric.District Court, E.D. California · 2018
- Cactus Corner, LLC v. U.S. Dept. of AgricultureCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2006
- Cactus Corner, LLC v. U.S. Department of AgricultureCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2006