Fund for Animals v. Hall

How courts have described this case

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

• finding a NEPA violation where the Fish and Wildlife 15 Defendants argue that the anti-segmentation principle does not apply to Categorical Exclusions. Defs.’ Mot. at 42 (citing Ctr. For Biological Diversity v. Salazar, 706 F.3d 1085, 1096-97 (9th Cir. 2013)
• “[T]he ESA’s Section 7 consultation process fails to provide for public comment in the same way that NEPA does.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).