green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 4×
46.7 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 2007 ·
…where the activities sought to be enjoined have already occurred, and the appellate courts cannot undo what has already been done, the action is moot.
at p. 1379
✓
Treatment trajectory · 1978 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1978
2002
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Center for Biological Diversity v. Lohn
where the activities sought to be enjoined have already occurred, and the appellate courts cannot undo what has already been done, the action is moot.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
The Rattlesnake Coalition v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
where the activities sought to be enjoined have already occurred, and the appellate courts cannot undo what 16100 rattlesnake coalition v. u.s. epa has already been done, the action is moot.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Headwaters, Inc. v. Bureau of Land Management
where the activities sought to be enjoined have already occurred, and the appellate courts cannot undo what has already been done, the action is moot
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Oregon Natural Resources Council v. United States Bureau of Land Management
(3×)
also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see, e.g."
where the activities sought to be enjoined have already occurred, and the appellate courts cannot undo what has already been done, the action is moot.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Wild Fish Conservancy v. Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife
Cf. Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Bergland, 576 F.2d 1377, 1379 (9th Cir. 1978) 4 (“Where the activities sought to be enjoined have already occurred, and the appellate courts 5 cannot undo what has already been done, the action is moot.”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State of Alaska, Department of Fish and Game v. Federal Subsistence Board
As to the State’s challenges to the emergency Kake hunt itself, the Court obviously cannot grant the State the relief that it seeks.71 However, as the parties noted, there exists an exception to the mootness doctrine for a controversy that is “capable of repetition, yet evading review.”72 It “applies ‘only in exceptional situations,’ where (1) ‘the challenged action [is] in its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to cessation or expiration,’ and (2) ‘there [is] a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party [will] be subject to the same action again.’�…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Wright v. Service Employees International Union Local 503
“Where the activities sought to be enjoined have already occurred, and the appellate courts cannot undo what has already been done, the action is moot.” Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Lohn, 511 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Bergland, 576 F.2d 1377, 79 (9th Cir. 1978)).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Native Village of Nuiqsut v. Bureau of Land Management
(3×)
R. 7.3(d) at Docket 44 is hereby GRANTED. 116 Docket 44-1. 117 See Docket 30 at 19 (“[I]t is not relevant that Conoco may, in future years, apply to conduct additional winter exploration programs in the [NPR-A], for approval of any such program would constitute new action for which new NEPA analysis would be required.”). 118 576 F.2d 1377 , 1379 (9th Cir. 1978). 119 Id. at 1378.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Wilderness Watch v. Julie King
“Where the activities sought to be enjoined have already occurred, and the appellate courts cannot undo what has already been done, the action is moot.” Headwaters, Inc. v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 893 F.2d 1012 , 1015 (9th Cir.1989) (quoting Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Bergland, 576 F.2d 1377, 1379 (9th Cir.1978)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In re: Peter F. Bronson and Sherri L. Bronson
See, e.g., Vegas Diamond 14 Props., LLC v. FDIC, 669 F.3d 933, 936 (9th Cir. 2012); 15 In Defense of Animals v. Dep’t of Interior, 648 F.3d 1012 , 1013 16 (9th Cir. 2011); Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Lohn, 511 F.3d 17 960, 963-64 (9th Cir. 2007); Seven Words LLC v. Network 18 Solutions, 260 F.3d 1089, 1095 (9th Cir. 2001); Friends of the 19 Earth, Inc. v. Bergland, 576 F.2d 1377, 1379 (9th Cir. 1978). 20 We acknowledge that, when the order on appeal authorizes a 21 sale of real property, we have invoked a different mootness 22 doctrine – bankruptcy sale mootness – in declaring an ap…
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Alcoa, Inc. v. Bonneville Power Administration
(4×)
Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Bergland, 576 F.2d 1377, 1379 (9th Cir.1978) (holding that “[w]here the activities sought to be enjoined have already occurred, and the appellate courts cannot undo what has already been done, the action is moot”); see also Feldman v. Bomar, 518 F.3d 637, 642-43 (9th Cir.2008).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Defense of Animals v. United States Department of the Interior
(2×)
Cf. Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Bergland, 576 F.2d 1377, 1379 (9th Cir.1978) (holding case moot where “courts cannot undo what has already been done”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
National Parks Conservation Ass'n v. United States Army Corps of Engineers
Nixon v. Craig, 163 F.3d 482, 485 (8th Cir.1998) (state’s challenge, under NEPA, to annual operating plans adopted by the Corps for river management that would shorten navigation season by two weeks under certain circumstances was moot, where navigation seasons at issue were over, and present plan did not use same approach); Neighbors Organized to Insure a Sound Env’t, Inc. v. McArtor, 878 F.2d 174 , 178 (6th Cir.1989) (issue of whether Federal Aviation Administration and local airport authority complied with NEPA by preparing sufficiently comprehensive environmental assessment for constru…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Doe v. Hagee
In the context of a request for in-junctive relief, where the activities sought to be enjoined have already occurred and the courts “cannot undo what has already been done, the action is moot.” Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Bergland, 576 F.2d 1377, 1379 (9th Cir.1978).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Aguon-Schulte v. Guam Election Com'n.
We have stated that, "[w]here the activities sought to be enjoined have already occurred, and the appellate courts cannot undo what has already been done, the action is moot." Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Bergland, 576 F.2d 1377, 1379 (9th Cir.1978).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Aguon-Schulte v. Attorney General of Guam
We have stated that, "[w]here the activities sought to be enjoined have already occurred, and the appellate courts cannot undo what has already been done, the action is moot.” Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Bergland, 576 F.2d 1377, 1379 (9th Cir.1978).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Santillan v. Gonzales
Where the activities sought to be enjoined have already occurred and the courts “cannot undo what has already been done, the action is moot.” Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Bergland, 576 F.2d 1377, 1379 (9th Cir.1978).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Fund for Animals v. U.S. Bureau of Land Management
Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Bergland, 576 F.2d 1377, 1379 (9th Cir.1978), see also Florida Wildlife Fed’n v. Goldschmidt, 611 F.2d 547, 548 (5th Cir.1980) (holding that when plaintiffs allege a violation of NEPA on a government project that has already been completed, the NEPA claim is moot).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
LAURIE Q. v. Contra Costa County
Where the activities sought to be enjoined have already occurred, and the courts “cannot undo what has already been done, the action is moot.” Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Bergland, 576 F.2d 1377, 1379 (9th Cir.1978).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Seven Words Llc, a California Limited Liability Company v. Network Solutions, a Delaware Corporation
In other words, “[w]here the activities sought to be enjoined have already occurred, and the appellate courts cannot undo what has already been done, the action is moot,” Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Bergland, 576 F.2d 1377, 1379 (9th Cir.1978), and it must be dismissed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Southwest Center for Biological Diversity v. United States Forest Service
See Humboldt County v. United States, 684 F.2d 1276, 1283-84 (9th Cir.1982) (challenge to road closure decision moot when status of land changed); Brady v. Smith, 656 F.2d 466, 468 (9th Cir.1981) (inmate’s claim for injunctive relief based on prison conditions moot when prisoner transferred to different facility); Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Bergland, 576 F.2d 1377, 1378-79 (9th Cir.1978) (challenge to mining plan dismissed as moot when activity sought to be enjoined already completed).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Environmental Protection Information Center, Inc. v. Pacific Lumber Co.
Where the activities sought to be enjoined have already occurred, and the courts “cannot undo what has already been done, the action is moot.” Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Bergland, 576 F.2d 1377, 1379 (9th Cir.1978).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Hawaii County Green Party v. Clinton
The Court cannot “undo what has already been done.” Id. (citing to Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Bergland, 576 F.2d 1377, 1379 (9th Cir.1978)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State of California v. Campbell
The modification provision, however, is not part of the injunction, 4 and the waterline provision is moot because California has already built the waterline, see Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Bergland, 576 F.2d 1377, 1379 (9th Cir.1978) ("Where the activities sought to be enjoined have already occurred, and the appellate courts cannot undo what has already been done, the action is moot.").
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
California ex rel. California Department of Toxic Substances Control v. Campbell
The modification provision, however, is not part of the injunction, 4 and the waterline provision is moot because California has already built the waterline, see Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Bergland, 576 F.2d 1377, 1379 (9th Cir.1978) (“Where the activities sought to be enjoined have already occurred, and the appellate courts cannot undo what has already been done, the action is moot.”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Northwest Resource Information Center, Inc. Oregon Natural Resources Council, Inc. Sierra Club Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakima Indian Nation American Rivers, and State of Idaho, Department of Fish & Game, Intervenor-Plaintiff-Appellee v. National Marine Fisheries Service U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Northwest Resource Information Center, Inc. Oregon Natural Resources Council, Inc. Sierra Club Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakima Indian Nation American Rivers, and State of Idaho, Department of Fish & Game, Intervenor-Plaintiff-Appellant v. National Marine Fisheries Service U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Northwest Resource Information Center, Inc. The Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakima Indian Nation American Rivers Oregon Natural Resources Council, Inc. Sierra Club v. National Marine Fisheries Service U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and Public Power Council, Defendant-Intervenor-Appellant v. State of Idaho, Department of Fish & Game, Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellee. Northwest Resource Information Center, Inc. Oregon Natural Resources Council, Inc. Sierra Club Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakima Indian Nation American Rivers v. National Marine Fisheries Service U.S. Army Corps of Engineers v. State of Idaho, Department of Fish & Game, Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellee, and Public Power Council, Defendant-Intervenor-Appellant, and Pacific Northwest Generating Cooperative, Defendant-Intervenor-Appellant. Northwest Resource Information Center, Inc. Oregon Natural Resources Council, Inc. Sierra Club Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakima Indian Nation American Rivers v. National Marine Fisheries Service U.S. Army Corps of Engineers v. State of Idaho, Department of Fish & Game, Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellee v. Pacific Northwest Generating Cooperative, Defendant-Intervenor-Appellant, and Direct Service Industrial Customers (Aluminum Co. Of America, Atochem North America, Columbia Falls Aluminum Company, Georgia-Pacific Corp., Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp., Intalco Aluminum Corp.), Defendants-Intervenors-Appellants
"Where the activities sought to be enjoined have already occurred, and the appellate courts cannot undo what has already been done, the action is moot." Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Bergland, 576 F.2d 1377, 1379 (9th Cir.1978). 37 Although the mootness doctrine generally bars claims challenging an action that has already taken place, there is an exception for claims which "may be repeated and yet evade review." Alaska Fish & Wildlife Fed'n v. Dunkle, 829 F.2d 933 , 939 (9th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 988 , 108 S.Ct. 1290 , 99 L.Ed.2d 501 (1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Northwest Resource Information Center, Inc. v. National Marine Fisheries Service
“Where the activities sought to be enjoined have already occurred, and the appellate courts cannot undo what has already been done, the action is moot.” Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Bergland, 576 F.2d 1377, 1379 (9th Cir.1978).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Oregon Natural Resources Council, Inc. v. Bureau of Reclamation
See id. at 1015-16 (claim for declaratory relief moot where challenged activity too remote and speculative to have adverse effect on existing interests of the parties); Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Bergland, 576 F.2d 1377, 1379 (9th Cir.1978) ("Where the activities sought to be enjoined have already occurred, and the appellate courts cannot undo what has already been done, the action is moot."). 12 The challenged action is not "capable of repetition yet evading review." See Headwaters, 893 F.2d at 1016 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Oregon Natural Resources Council, Inc. v. Bureau Of Reclamation
See id. at 1015-16 (claim for declaratory relief moot where challenged activity too remote and speculative to have adverse effect on existing interests of the parties); Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Bergland, 576 F.2d 1377, 1379 (9th Cir.1978) ("Where the activities sought to be enjoined have already occurred, and the appellate courts cannot undo what has already been done, the action is moot."). 11 Nor is the challenged action "capable of repetition yet evading review." See Headwaters, 893 F.2d at 1016 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Oregon Natural Resources Council, Inc. v. Bureau of Reclamation
See id. at 1015-16 (claim for declaratory relief moot where challenged activity too remote and speculative to have adverse effect on existing interests of the parties); Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Bergland, 576 F.2d 1377, 1379 (9th Cir.1978) (“Where the activities sought to be enjoined have already occurred, and the appellate courts cannot undo what has already been done, the action is moot”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Environmental Rights Coalition, Inc. v. Austin
See, e.g., Conservation Law, 707 F.2d at 636 (noting that, “GSA ... has no power [under NEPA or any other law] to control” development on former government land once that land has been sold); South East Lake View Neighbors v. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 685 F.2d 1027, 1039 (7th Cir.1982) (denying relief under NEPA where “building [was] in the final stages of construction”); Richland Park Homeowners Ass’n, Inc. v. Pierce, 671 F.2d 935, 941 (5th Cir.1982) (“the basic thrust of the NEPA legislation is ... not to serve as a basis for after-the-fact critical evaluation …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Clow v. U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development
See DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312, 317 , 94 S.Ct. 1704, 1706 , 40 L.Ed.2d 164 (1974) (per curiam) (“ ‘Where the activities sought to be enjoined have already occurred, and the appellate courts cannot undo what has already been done, the action is moot.’ ”); Headwaters, Inc. v. Bureau of Land Management, 893 F.2d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir.1989) (quoting Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Bergland, 576 F.2d 1377, 1379 (9th Cir.1978)); see also United States v. Alder Creek Water Co., 823 F.2d 343, 345 (9th Cir.1987) (“A case becomes moot when interim relief or events have deprived the court of…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Clow v. Department of Housing and Urban Development
See DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312, 317 , 94 S.Ct. 1704, 1706 , 40 L.Ed.2d 164 (1974) (per curiam) (" 'Where the activities sought to be enjoined have already occurred, and the appellate courts cannot undo what has already been done, the action is moot.' "); Headwaters, Inc. v. Bureau of Land Management, 893 F.2d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir.1989) (quoting Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Bergland, 576 F.2d 1377, 1379 (9th Cir.1978)); see also United States v. Alder Creek Water Co., 823 F.2d 343, 345 (9th Cir.1987) ("A case becomes moot when interim relief or events have deprived the court of the abili…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
ICR Graduate School v. Honig
Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Bergland, 576 F.2d 1377, 1379 (9th Cir.1978).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Western District Council of Lumber Production and Industrial Workers v. Louisiana Pacific Corporation, a Delaware Corporation
It is true that we have stated that: “[wjhere the activities sought to be enjoined have already occurred, and the appellate courts cannot undo what has already been done, the action is moot.” Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Bergland, 576 F.2d 1377, 1379 (9th Cir.1978); see Sawyer v. Pioneer Mill Co., 300 F.2d 200, 202 (9th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 814 , 83 S.Ct. 24 , 9 L.Ed.2d 55 (1962) (shareholder’s action seeking preliminary injunction prohibiting management from voting proxies at meeting to approve merger was moot because the meeting had occurred and the other party to t…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sierra Club v. Penfold
The impacts of the Plan mines are not remediable since we cannot order that the Plans be "unmined." See Friends of the Earth v. Bergland, 576 F.2d 1377 1378-79 (9th Cir.1978) (challenge to approval of exploratory drilling for failure to comply with NEPA was moot where all work on the project had ceased). 61 Even if we were to assume we had the authority to order reclamation efforts by the miners which were not included in the miners' Plan as approved, the remedy is inconsistent with the denial of the motion to compel compliance which is the issue on this appeal.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sierra Club v. Penfold
The impacts of the Plan mines are not remediable since we cannot order that the Plans be “unmined.” See Friends of the Earth v. Bergland, 576 F.2d 1377 1378-79 (9th Cir.1978) (challenge to approval of exploratory drilling for failure to comply with NEPA was moot where all work on the project had ceased).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Park County Resource Council, Inc. v. United States Department of Agriculture
See Richland Park Homeowners Ass’n, Inc. v. Pierce, 671 F.2d 935, 941-42 (5th Cir.1982); City of Romulus v. County of Wayne, 634 F.2d 347, 348-49 (6th Cir.1980); Florida Wildlife Fed’n v. Goldschmidt, 611 F.2d 547, 549 (5th Cir.1980); Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Bergland, 576 F.2d 1377, 1378-79 (9th Cir.1978); Ogunquit Village Corp. v. Davis, 553 F.2d 243, 246-47 (1st Cir.1977) (NEPA challenges all considered moot where activity or project completed or nearly completed at time of appeal).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Park County Resource Council, Inc. v. United States Department Of Agriculture
See Richland Park Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. Pierce, 671 F.2d 935 , 941-42 (5th Cir.1982); City of Romulus v. County of Wayne, 634 F.2d 347, 348-49 (6th Cir.1980); Florida Wildlife Fed'n v. Goldschmidt, 611 F.2d 547, 549 (5th Cir.1980); Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Bergland, 576 F.2d 1377, 1378-79 (9th Cir.1978); Ogunquit Village Corp. v. Davis, 553 F.2d 243, 246-47 (1st Cir.1977) (NEPA challenges all considered moot where activity or project completed or nearly completed at time of appeal).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sample v. Johnson
See, for example, DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312, 318-19 , 94 S.Ct. 1704, 1706-07 , 40 L.Ed.2d 164 (1974) (certain that plaintiff, who challenged admission policies of law school to which he was ordered admitted and from which he graduated, would never go through law school again); Hall v. Beals, 396 U.S. 45, 49 , 90 S.Ct. 200, 202 , 24 L.Ed.2d 214 (1969) (almost no chance that franchise residency statute that affected plaintiffs in 1968 election would also affect them in 1972); Trustees for Alaska v. E.P.A., 749 F.2d 549 , 556 (9th Cir.1984) (intervening change in legal standard moots clai…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sample v. Johnson
See, for example, DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312, 318-19 , 94 S.Ct. 1704, 1706-07 , 40 L.Ed.2d 164 (1974) (certain that plaintiff, who challenged admission policies of law school to which he was ordered admitted and from which he graduated, would never go through law school again); Hall v. Beals, 396 U.S. 45, 49 , 90 S.Ct. 200, 202 , 24 L.Ed.2d 214 (1969) (almost no chance that franchise residency statute that affected plaintiffs in 1968 election would also affect them in 1972); Trustees for Alaska v. E.P.A., 749 F.2d 549 , 556 (9th Cir.1984) (intervening change in legal standard moots clai…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kirby v. United States Government
See, e.g., City of Romulus v. County of Wayne, 634 F.2d 347 (6th Cir.1980) (attempt to enjoin construction of airport runway is moot when runway was finished): Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Bergland, 576 F.2d 1377, 1378-79 (9th Cir.1978) (mining operation ceased, so challenge to approval of the drilling based on alleged violation of environmental statutes was moot).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Regis J. Kirby v. United States Government, Department Of Housing & Urban Development
See, e.g., City of Romulus v. County of Wayne, 634 F.2d 347 (6th Cir.1980) (attempt to enjoin construction of airport runway is moot when runway was finished): Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Bergland, 576 F.2d 1377, 1378-79 (9th Cir.1978) (mining operation ceased, so challenge to approval of the drilling based on alleged violation of environmental statutes was moot). 8 Although emphasis on the efficacy of the remedy is appropriate, changed circumstances will frequently moot only some forms of relief, leaving other useful forms available.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Alta Bumpus v. Donald E. Clark
(2×)
Pierre v. United States, 319 U.S. 41, 42-43 , 63 S.Ct. 910, 911 , 87 L.Ed. 1199 (1943); Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Bergland, 576 F.2d 1377, 1378-79 (9th Cir.1978).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State of Nevada, Ex Rel. Nevada State Board of Agriculture v. United States of America
See Golden v. Zwickler, 394 U.S. 103 , 89 S.Ct. 956 , 22 L.Ed.2d 113 (1969); Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Bergland, 576 F.2d 1377, 1379 (9th Cir.1978); Hospital Association of New York State Inc. v. Toia, 577 F.2d 790, 798 (2d Cir.1978); Western Electric Co., Inc. v. Milgo Electronic Corp., 568 F.2d 1203, 1207-08 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 895 , 99 S.Ct. 255 , 58 L.Ed.2d 241 (1978), all cases illustrative of the general rule that when actions complained of have been completed or terminated, declaratory judgment and injunctive actions are precluded by the doctrine of mootness.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
American Horse Protection Ass'n v. Watt
Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Bergland, 576 F.2d 1377, 1379 (9th Cir. 1978).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
American Horse Protection Association, Inc. v. Watt
Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Bergland, 576 F.2d 1377, 1379 (9th Cir. 1978).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Richland Park Homeowners Ass'n v. Pierce
See, e.g., Florida Wildlife Federation v. Goldschmidt, 611 F.2d 547, 549 (5th Cir. 1980); Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Bergland, 576 F.2d 1377, 1379 (9th Cir. 1978). .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Richland Park Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Pierce
Because the plaintiffs lose either because their claims lack merit or because they lack standing, we stress that the assumption of standing, arguendo, does not imply its recognition 4 See, e.g., Florida Wildlife Federation v. Goldschmidt, 611 F.2d 547, 549 (5th Cir. 1980); Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Bergland, 576 F.2d 1377, 1379 (9th Cir. 1978) 5 See, e.g., Save Our Wetlands, Inc. (SOWL) v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 549 F.2d 1021, 1026-29 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 836 , 98 S.Ct. 126 , 54 L.Ed.2d 98 (1977); Sworob v. Harris, 451 F.Supp. 96, 101-02 (D.C.Pa.), aff'd mem.,…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Columbia Basin Land Protection Association, Etc., and South Columbia Basin Irrigation District, Plaintiff-Intervenor v. James R. Schlesinger, Etc., Columbia Basin Land Protection Association, Etc., and South Columbia Basin Irrigation District, Plaintiff-Intervenor v. James R. Schlesinger, Etc., Columbia Basin Land Protection Association, Etc., and South Columbia Basin Irrigation District, Plaintiff-Intervenor, and State of Washington and Franklin County, Plaintiffs-Intervenors-Appellants v. James Schlesigner, Etc.
Campbell Co. v. Lloyd Wood Construction Co., 446 F.2d 261 , 264 (5th Cir. 1971) (the fact that construction on a government contract was "well underway" was not sufficient to moot the challenge to the appropriateness of the contract award), with Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Bergland, 576 F.2d 1377, 1378-79 (9th Cir. 1978) (where all work on exploratory mining operation had ceased, and the appellate court could not undo what had been done, a challenge to the approval of the drilling based on alleged lack of compliance with NEPA was moot) and DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312, 317 , 94 S.Ct. 17…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Friends of the Earth, Inc., a New York Corporation, Edward Dobson, Randall H. Gloege, Chuck Davis and Dr. J. H. Johnson
v.
Bob Bergland, 1 in His Official Capacity as Secretary of Agriculture, John R. McGuire in His Official Capacity as Chief, U. S. Forest Service, Steve Yurich, in His Official Capacity as Regional Forester, Region 1, U. S. Forest Service, Dan MacIntyre in His Official Capacity as Forest Supervisor, Custer National Forest, U. S. Forest Service, Gary Wetzsteon, in His Official Capacity as Beartooth District Ranger, Custer National Forest, U. S. Forest Service and the Johns-Manville Sales Corporation, a Colorado Corporation
v.
Bob Bergland, 1 in His Official Capacity as Secretary of Agriculture, John R. McGuire in His Official Capacity as Chief, U. S. Forest Service, Steve Yurich, in His Official Capacity as Regional Forester, Region 1, U. S. Forest Service, Dan MacIntyre in His Official Capacity as Forest Supervisor, Custer National Forest, U. S. Forest Service, Gary Wetzsteon, in His Official Capacity as Beartooth District Ranger, Custer National Forest, U. S. Forest Service and the Johns-Manville Sales Corporation, a Colorado Corporation
75-3477.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Jun 13, 1978.
576 F.2d 1377
Cited by 33 opinions | Published
Citer courts: Ninth Circuit (1)
FRIENDS OF THE EARTH, INC., a New York Corporation, Edward
Dobson, Randall H. Gloege, Chuck Davis and Dr. J.
H. Johnson, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
Bob BERGLAND,[1] in his official capacity as
Secretary of Agriculture, John R. McGuire, in his official
capacity as Chief, U. S. Forest Service, Steve Yurich, in
his official capacity as Regional Forester, Region 1, U. S.
Forest Service, Dan MacIntyre, in his official capacity as
Forest Supervisor, Custer National Forest, U. S. Forest
Service, Gary Wetzsteon, in his official capacity as
Beartooth District Ranger, Custer National Forest, U. S.
Forest Service and the Johns-Manville Sales Corporation, a
Colorado Corporation, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 75-3477.
United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.
June 13, 1978.
[*~1377]1
William L. Madden, Jr. (argued), Bozeman, Mont., for plaintiffs-appellants.
2
Robert T. Connery (argued), Denver, Colo., George R. Hyde (argued), Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for defendants-appellees.
3
Appeal from the United States District Court, District of Montana.
4
Before WRIGHT and CHOY, Circuit Judges, WEIGEL[*], District Judge.
WEIGEL, District Judge:
[*~1378]5
Plaintiffs below appeal from an order of the district court granting summary judgment for defendants.[2] Plaintiffs seek to challenge the decision of the Secretary of Agriculture, through the United States Forest Service ("Service"), approving a plan submitted by the Johns-Manville Sales Corporation ("JMSC") to engage in exploratory mining operations in the "Stillwater Complex" of the Custer National Forest. The plan called for JMSC (1) to drill a 3,000 foot exploration adit next to the West Fork of the Stillwater River; (2) to make spot improvements of approximately six miles of nearby road; (3) to construct a fifty foot bridge across the river; (4) to build a temporary campsite near the adit; (5) to construct a 300 foot access road to the adit; and (6) to deposit nearby approximately 4,000 cubic yards of rock extracted from the adit. The operation was to have been completed on or about September 1, 1975, at which time the temporary buildings were to have been removed. Plaintiffs assert that the decision of the Service approving the plan was made in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 et seq. ("NEPA"). Plaintiffs' principal claim is that the Act required public hearings before the Service could validly decide that no Environmental Impact Statement was needed.
6
We have concluded that this case has become moot while on appeal. While the JMSC operation continued beyond the anticipated date of completion, all work ceased in May, 1976, when JMSC struck water in the course of its exploratory activities. While it is true, as counsel for plaintiffs pointed out at oral argument, that JMSC sought and received permission to extend the adit an additional 3,000 feet, that permission expired, without being used, in December, 1975. See Affidavit of J. Michael Sharratt, Exploration Manager of JMSC (filed April 5, 1978) (hereinafter "Sharratt affidavit").[3] JMSC is also under an obligation to secure a water discharge permit from the State of Montana before it can continue its exploration. Id.; Affidavit of Geo. R. Hyde, Atty., U. S. Dep't of Justice (filed April 5, 1978). The temporary buildings will be removed in November or December, 1978. Sharratt affidavit.
[*1379]7
Where the activities sought to be enjoined have already occurred, and the appellate courts cannot undo what has already been done, the action is moot. In Matter of Combined Metals Reduction Co., 557 F.2d 179 (9th Cir. 1977). This is especially so where, as here, no stay on appeal has been sought. Id. at 189.
8
It should be noted that this is not a case where the action involved is of a character "capable of repetition yet evading review." Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. ICC, 219 U.S. 498, 31 S.Ct. 279, 55 L.Ed. 310 (1911). There is no reasonable possibility, based on what is before us, that JMSC will resume or repeat the exploratory operation which plaintiffs previously sought to enjoin. Williams v. Alioto, 549 F.2d 136, 142 (9th Cir. 1977). Moreover, the denial of review in this case on grounds of mootness will not defeat appellate adjudication on the type of questions presented in this case (before mootness developed). Appellate cases dealing with issues similar to those raised in this proceeding include, for example, Sierra Club v. Morton, 169 U.S.App.D.C. 20, 514 F.2d 856 (1975), rev'd sub nom. Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427 U.S. 390, 96 S.Ct. 2718, 49 L.Ed.2d 576 (1976); Hanly v. Kleindienst, 471 F.2d 823 (2d Cir. 1972, cert. denied, 412 U.S. 908, 93 S.Ct. 2290, 36 L.Ed.2d 974 (1973); First Nat'l Bank of Chicago v. Richardson, 484 F.2d 1369 (7th Cir. 1973).
9
Counsel for plaintiffs has suggested that the case nonetheless is not moot because JMSC may engage in similar operations in other places, attracted by the rich minerals in the area of the "Stillwater Complex", coupled with impending deadlines on exploration in the area set by the Wilderness Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1131 et seq. However, "relief under NEPA must be tailored to remedy the particular violations in the case; courts will not issue injunctions under NEPA only as prophylactic or punitive measures." Realty Income Trust v. Eckerd, 564 F.2d 447, 456 (D.C.Cir. 1977), citing Cady v. Morton, 537 F.2d 786, 799 n.12 (9th Cir. 1975).
10
The case is remanded to the district court to be dismissed as moot. United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36, 71 S.Ct. 104, 95 L.Ed. 36 (1950).
1
The present Secretary of Agriculture is substituted for his predecessor. Fed.R.App.P. 43(c)(1)
*
Hon. Stanley A. Weigel, United States District Judge, Northern District of California, sitting by designation
2
The opinion of the district court is reported at 406 F.Supp. 742 (D.Mont.1975)
3
The affidavit states that the permission expired on Dec. 18, 1976. At oral argument, counsel for JMSC indicated that this was a clerical error, and that the correct date was Dec. 18, 1975