Oregon Trollers Ass'n v. Gutierrez

How courts have described this case

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

• deciding, under a different statute and applying a different term—“stock,” rather than “species”—that NMFS could treat hatchery and naturally spawned salmon differently
• rejecting best science claim where “[t]here [was] no evidence in the record the [agency’s] 1986 and 1988 studies [were] outdated or flawed”
• rejecting best science claim where “[t]here [was] no evidence in the record the [agency’s] 1986 and 1988 studies [were] outdated or flawed”
• exercising discretion to reach a purely legal issue that plaintiffs raised only during oral argument before the district court
• upholding the NMFS’s fishery restrictions because plaintiffs had 6 pointed to no scientific information better than the information on which the NMFS relied
• finding lawful NMFS’s distinction between natural and hatchery spawners of salmon even though spawners swam side-by-side and prior management measures did not distinguish between the two

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).