Legal Opinion
Public Lands Council v. Babbitt
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Decided February 8, 1999No. 96-8083PublishedCited by 22 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER ON REHEARING
The Secretary has petitioned the court for rehearing, requesting that it delete the highlighted portion of the following sentence as unnecessary to the court’s holding and incorrect as a matter of law: “Congress intended that once the Secretary established a grazing district under the TGA, the primary use of that land should be grazing unless the Secretary withdraws the land from grazing use in accordance with the withdrawal provisions of FLPMA. See 43 U.S.C. § 1714”. 154 F.3d at 1181. In response, Public Lands Council concedes that the statutory citation is incorrect but…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Assn. of United States, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
- United States v. SalernoSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Reno v. FloresSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Rust v. SullivanSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- Federal Lands Legal Consortium v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1999
- Seneca-Cayuga Tribe v. National Indian Gaming CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2003
- Amfac Resorts, L.L.C. v. United States Department of the InteriorCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2002
- Navajo Nation v. DalleyCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2018
- United States v. Burlington Northern RailroadCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1999
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.