Skip to main content

Fund for Animals v. Babbitt

Citations

  • 903 F. Supp. 96
  • 26 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20537
  • 42 ERC (BNA) 1068
  • 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14742
  • 1995 WL 590687

How courts have described this case

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

  • explaining that where a case involves a challenge to a final administrative action, a court's review is limited to the administrative record
  • noting that 6 the term “specific” modifies the term site, not the term “actions”
  • noting that 6 the term “specific” modifies the term site, not the term “actions”
  • “Because science and circumstances change, however, the FWS needs, and the statute provides, some flexibility as it implements the recovery plan.”
  • recovery plan violated ESA 26 because it identified habitat degradation to be a threat but failed to identify criteria to assess 27 the present or threatened destruction of habitat
  • recovery plan violated ESA 26 because it identified habitat degradation to be a threat but failed to identify criteria to assess 27 the present or threatened destruction of habitat

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Paul L. Friedman

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

24 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Fund for Animals v. Babbitt

4 other CourtListener records share 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.