Todd v. Bourke

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that Wildlife Services-Idaho’s stated “high” or “extremely high” probability that it will conduct lethal removal operations in unique areas, including a Wilderness Study Area and an Area of Critical Concern, provided “yet another reason for requiring an EIS”
• finding high probability that PDM would occur in a Wilderness Study Area and an Area of Critical Environmental Concern weighed in favor of requiring an EIS
• finding Wildlife Services’ comment “that it only responds to the requests for predator control by other agencies who are in the best position to determine the effectiveness of any specific [predator damage management] program” was “not a sufficient response under NEPA”
• “[I]f the Final EA demonstrates anything, it is that Wildlife Services has serious disagreements with leading experts, and has not given their studies the full attention they deserve.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).