E.D. California· 9/20/2011
In Re Consolidated Salmonid Cases
Citations
- 791 F. Supp. 2d 802
- 2011 WL 4552293
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- describing how the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment “included ... thousands of pages of supporting declarations and exhibits”
- posing the following questions: ‘What effect do these exotics have on the Listed Species? To what extent does the contribution of the Projects to the continued presence of these exotics contribute to the jeopardy finding?”
- “Plaintiffs do not directly contest the conclusion that the altered hydrologic conditions are favorable for invasive species. Nor do Plaintiffs challenge the BiOp’s conclusion that CVP and SWP operations contribute to this ecosystem alteration.”
- Hilborn Reply Deck, ECF No. 493
- Cavallo Deck, ECF No. 446-1
- Dotan Decl., ECF No. 442
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Cited by
6 cases in this archive cite this case.
- San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water v. Pacific Coast Federation Etc.Ninth Circuit· 2014-12-22· cited 109×
- Oceana, Inc. v. GutierrezDistrict of Columbia· 2014-12-17· cited 18×
- San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority v. JewellE.D. California· 2014-10-01· cited 3×
- Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations v. United States Department of the InteriorE.D. California· 2014-02-06· cited 2×
- Natural Resources Defense Council v. PritzkerN.D. California· 2014-03-28· cited 1×
- Bundorf v. JewellD. Nevada· 2015-02-03· cited 1×
Cites
69 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court· 1984-06-25· cited 20,645×
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Assn. of United States, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co.Supreme Court· 1983-06-24· cited 8,453×
- Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. VolpeSupreme Court· 1971-03-02· cited 7,564×
- Skidmore v. Swift & Co.Supreme Court· 1944-12-04· cited 4,567×
- Califano v. SandersSupreme Court· 1977-02-23· cited 3,951×
- Bennett v. SpearSupreme Court· 1997-03-19· cited 3,786×
- United States v. Mead Corp.Supreme Court· 2001-06-18· cited 3,086×
- University of Texas v. CamenischSupreme Court· 1981-04-29· cited 2,376×
- Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources CouncilSupreme Court· 1989-05-01· cited 2,029×
- Christensen v. Harris CountySupreme Court· 2000-05-01· cited 2,025×
- Tennessee Valley Authority v. HillSupreme Court· 1978-06-15· cited 1,928×
- Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court· 1983-06-06· cited 1,328×
- Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection AgencySupreme Court· 2007-04-02· cited 1,227×
- National Ass'n of Home Builders v. Defenders of WildlifeSupreme Court· 2007-06-25· cited 939×
- The Lands Council v. McNairNinth Circuit· 2008-07-02· cited 543×
- Sierra Club v. MainellaDistrict of Columbia· 2012-04-25· cited 384×
- American Wildlands v. KempthorneD.C. Circuit· 2008-07-08· cited 366×
- Patrick Esch v. Clayton K. Yeutter, Secretary, U.S. Department of AgricultureD.C. Circuit· 1989-05-25· cited 299×
- Conner v. BurfordNinth Circuit· 1988-01-13· cited 244×
- California v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1978-07-03· cited 237×
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.