Salix v. United States Forest Service
District Court, D. Montana
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
DANA L. CHRISTENSEN, District Judge.
Before the Court are the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiffs’ motion is granted and Defendants’ motion is denied. As threshold matters, Plaintiffs have standing to challenge the Forest Service’s failure to reinitiate section 7 consultation on the programmatic plan amendment at issue here, and the Court has jurisdiction to consider the case because Plaintiffs’ notice of intent to sue was adequate. The Court also finds that the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Pacific Rivers Council v. Thomas, 30 F.3d 1050…
2Cases cited34 opinions
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Summers v. Earth Island InstituteSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources CouncilSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Tennessee Valley Authority v. HillSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness AllianceSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Cottonwood Environmental Law Center v. United States Forest ServiceCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2015
- Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. KruegerDistrict Court, D. Montana · 2013
- Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. MartenDistrict Court, D. Montana · 2017
- Friends of the Wild Swan v. WeberDistrict Court, D. Montana · 2013
- Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. WeberDistrict Court, D. Montana · 2013
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.