Center for Biological Diversity v. Ken Salazar

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the six-year statute of limitations applied to claims challenging the application of a regulation to a specific circumstance
• holding that while \a numerical limitation\ is preferred, there are situations where such a limitation is not feasible and the Service \may utilize a surrogate\
• holding that the MMPA does not require FWS to quantify the number of mammals that would be taken when making a small numbers determination
• holding that while the plaintiffs were time-barred from challenging a 1983 regulatory definition, “they can challenge [FWS’s] alleged application of that definition in the 2008 Chukchi Sea regulations as exceeding the agency’s statutory authority”
• explaining that a BiOp must address whether the proposed action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the listed species \as a whole\
• holding that in order “[t]o effectuate Congress’ intent, ‘small numbers’ and ‘negligible impact’ must be defined so that each term has a separate meaning” (quoting Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Evans, 279 F. Supp. 2d 1129, 1153 (N.D. Cal. 2003))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).