Center for Biological Diversity v. Sam Hamilton

How courts have described this case

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

• rejecting plaintiffs’ -6- argument that “the passage of each day creates an additional cause of action, which triggers anew the running of the six-year limitations period”
• “To determine whether the continuing violation doctrine applies, we must consider the text of the relevant statute . . . .”
• no continuing violation because the plaintiff “complain[ed] of the continuing effects of . . . a one-time violation under the Act” and because “a reasonably prudent plaintiff would have been aware of the failure of the Secretary to act on the day following the deadline”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).