Skip to main content
Federal & State Lawfederalstatelaw.com
Home/Federal/Cases
Eleventh Circuit· 6/13/1996

Fund for Animals, Inc. v. Rice

Citations

  • 85 F.3d 535
  • 1996 WL 281712

How courts have described this case

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

  • concluding that the information already before the Corps, including two FWS biological opinions, demonstrated that the Corps took “a hard look at the project before deciding to fore-go the time and administrative costs of preparing an [EIS]”
  • holding “recovery plans are for guidance purposes only”
  • “[T]here is no legal requirement that an Environmental Assessment be circulated publicly and, in fact, they rarely are.”
  • “In response to the suit, the F.W.S. requested that the Corps resume § 7 consultation on the permit.”
  • “[W]e hold that the Plaintiffs have failed to show that the Corps acted arbitrarily and capriciously by relying on these Opinions when consultation with the F.W.S. is exactly what is required by the relevant statutory scheme.”
  • “To determine whether an agency decision was arbitrary and capricious, the reviewing court must consider whether the decision was based on a consideration of the relevant factors and whether there has been a clear error of judgment.” (internal quotation marks omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Kravitch, Dubina, Carnes

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

67 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

14 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named Fund for Animals, Inc. v. Rice

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.