Am. Horse Prot. Ass'n, Inc. v. Watt, 679 F.2d 150 (9th Cir. 1982). · Go Syfert
Search
Am. Horse Prot. Ass'n, Inc. v. Watt, 679 F.2d 150 (9th Cir. 1982). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
26 citation events (7 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: In Defense of Animals v. United States Department of the Interior (ca9, 2011-08-15)
Treatment trajectory · 1982 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1982 2004 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Defense of Animals v. United States Department of the Interior (2×)
9th Cir. · 2011 · confidence medium
Ass’n, Inc. v. Watt, 679 F.2d 150, 151 (9th Cir. 1982) (noting that the court “cannot order [the completed roundup’s] effects undone”).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Tinoqui-Chalola Council Of Kitanemuk And Yowlumne Tejon Indians v. United States Department Of Energy
9th Cir. · 2000 · confidence medium
We determined that the appeal was moot because the roundup was complete and "[w]e cannot order its effects undone." American Horse Protection Ass'n, 679 F.2d at 151.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Alaska Center for the Environment Alaska Wildlife Alliance v. U.S. Forest Service John C. Dorio, District Ranger, Chugach National Forest
9th Cir. · 1999 · confidence medium
Partnership), 820 F.2d 308, 311 (9th Cir.1987) (a party may not profit from the repetition/evasion exception “where through his own failure to seek and obtain a stay he has prevented” judicial review); Headwaters v. BLM, 893 F.2d 1012 , 1015-16 (9th Cir.1990); American Horse Protection Ass’n v. Watt, 679 F.2d 150, 151 (9th Cir.1982).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Headwaters, Inc. v. Bureau of Land Management
9th Cir. · 1990 · confidence medium
“Where prompt application for a stay pending appeal can preserve an issue for appeal, the issue is not one that will evade review.” American Horse Protection Ass’n, Inc. v. Watt, 679 F.2d 150, 151 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (citing Marshall v. Whittaker Corp., Berwick Forge & Fabricating Co., 610 F.2d 1141, 1146 (3d Cir.1979)). 8 Any further timber sales in the Josephine Unit can be attacked in court and restrained if the court finds reason to restrain them.
discussed Cited "see" Neighborhood Transportation Network, Inc. v. Pena
8th Cir. · 1994 · signal: see · confidence high
See American Horse Protection Ass’n v. Watt, 679 F.2d 150, 151 (9th Cir.1982) (“Where prompt application for a stay pending appeal can preserve an issue for appeal, the issue is not one that will evade review.”); Headwaters, Inc. v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 893 F.2d 1012 , 1016 & n. 8 (9th Cir.1989) (same).
discussed Cited "see" Neighborhood Transportation Network, Inc. v. Pena
8th Cir. · 1994 · signal: see · confidence high
See American Horse Protection Ass'n v. Watt, 679 F.2d 150, 151 (9th Cir.1982) ("Where prompt application for a stay pending appeal can preserve an issue for appeal, the issue is not one that will evade review."); Headwaters, Inc. v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 893 F.2d 1012 , 1016 & n. 8 (9th Cir.1989) (same).
cited Cited "see" Gte California, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission
unknown court · 1994 · signal: see · confidence high
See American Horse Protection Ass'n, Inc. v. Watt, 679 F.2d 150 , 151 (9th Cir.1982); see also Headwaters, Inc., 893 F.2d at 1016 .
cited Cited "see" GTE California, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission
unknown court · 1994 · signal: see · confidence high
See American Horse Protection Ass’n, Inc. v. Watt, 679 F.2d 150, 151 (9th Cir.1982); see also Headwaters, Inc., 893 F.2d at 1016 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
American Horse Protection Association, Inc., and the Humane Society of the United States
v.
James Watt, Secretary of the Department of Interior, Frank Gregg, Director, Department of Interior, Edward Hastey, Associate Director, Department of Interior
80-4522.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Jun 7, 1982.
679 F.2d 150
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

679 F.2d 150

12 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,761

AMERICAN HORSE PROTECTION ASSOCIATION, INC., and The Humane
Society of the United States, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
James WATT, Secretary of the Department of Interior, Frank
Gregg, Director, Department of Interior, Edward
Hastey, Associate Director, Department
of Interior, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.

No. 80-4522.

United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Jan. 15, 1982.
Decided June 7, 1982.

Russell J. Gaspar, Washington, D. C., argued, for plaintiffs-appellants; David M. Barrett, Joseph E. Schuler, Barrett, Hanna, Daly & Gaspar, Washington, D. C., on brief.

David H. Shilton, Atty., U. S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., argued, for defendants-appellees; Dirk Snel, Washington, D. C., on brief.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada.

Before BROWNING, Chief Judge, SKOPIL and NORRIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

[*~150]1

We are asked to review the district court's refusal to enjoin an "interim" wild-horse roundup prior to the filing of an Environmental Impact Statement. The facts are sufficiently outlined in prior opinions on this matter. American Horse Protection Ass'n v. Andrus, 460 F.Supp. 880 (D.Nev.1978), aff'd in part, vacated in part and remanded, 608 F.2d 811 (9th Cir. 1979). On remand, the district court refused to enjoin a roundup scheduled for September 15, 1980. Appellants filed this appeal on October 24, 1980. They unsuccessfully sought a stay pending appeal from the district court. The roundup originally scheduled for September 15 was completed on November 12, 1980 while this appeal was pending. On February 5, 1981, we granted Appellants' motion to enjoin further roundups pending appeal.

2

The Secretary contends the case is moot. We agree. Only the September 15 roundup can be challenged as lacking an EIS or as having violated the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act, and that roundup has been completed. We cannot order its effects undone. Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Bergland, 576 F.2d 1377, 1379 (9th Cir. 1978). An EIS has since been filed. Appellants' argument that the EIS is inadequate is not before us since it has not been presented to a district court.

3

Appellants assert this case involves actions capable of repetition yet evading review. Twelve EIS's are planned for the State of Nevada and only one, for the Tonopah District, has been completed. The twelfth will not be completed until 1988. It is undisputed that additional "interim" roundups are planned. Repetition of the complained-of action is therefore likely.

4

We are unconvinced, however, that a repetition will evade review. Although the record does not contain the decree, the district court's order notes that "the parties were directed to formulate a decree providing for appropriate notice to AHPA of proposed actions ... and giving to AHPA a reasonable opportunity to challenge BLM action ...." The district court has, therefore, specifically provided for judicial review before action is taken. In the event of an adverse ruling by the district court, plaintiffs can seek a stay pending appeal. Where prompt application for a stay pending appeal can preserve an issue for appeal, the issue is not one that will evade review. Marshall v. Whittaker Corp., Berwick Forge & Fabricating Co., 610 F.2d 1141, 1146 (3d Cir. 1979).

[*~151]5

Dismissed.