Legal Opinion
Arizona Cattle Growers' Ass'n v. United States Fish & Wildlife
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided December 17, 2001No. Nos. 99-16102, 99-16103, 00-15322 and 00-15511PublishedCited by 193 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
WARD LAW, Circuit Judge:
At issue in these consolidated cross-appeals is whether the United States Fish and Wildlife Service’s provision of Incidental Take Statements pursuant to the Endangered Species Act was arbitrary and capricious under Section 706 of the Administrative Procedure Act. In separate actions, the Arizona Cattle Growers’ Association (“ACGA”) challenged the Incidental Take Statements set forth in the Biological Opinions issued by the Fish and Wildlife Service in consultation with the Bureau of Land Management (ACGA I) and the United States Forest Service (ACGA II) in response to…
2Cases cited35 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
- Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. VolpeSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Abbott Laboratories v. GardnerSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Allen v. WrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by193 opinions
- Rio Grande Silvery Minnow v. Bureau of ReclamationCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2010
- San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water v. Natural Resources Defense CounCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2014
- National Wildlife Federation v. National Marine Fisheries ServiceCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2008
- National Wildlife Federation v. National Marine Fisheries ServiceCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2005
- Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2009
188 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.