green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 5×
48.7 score
“the corps' regu- lations do not require the corps to undertake an independent investigation or to gather its own information upon which to base an ea.”
Treatment trajectory · 1986 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1986
2006
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
But cf. Reardon v. United States, 947 F.2d 1509 (1st Cir.1991) (application of § 9613(h) to bar review of EPA imposition of lien under § 9607(l ) violates procedural due process). 46 AFFIRMED. 1 Unless otherwise indicated, all statutory citations are to Title 42, United States Code 2 CERCLA requires EPA to issue a Record of Decision explaining the basis and purpose of the selected action. § 9613(k)(2)(B) 3 See, e.g., Barnes v. United States District Court, 800 F.2d 822 (9th Cir.1986) (per curiam) (granting petition for writ of mandate to dismiss an action involving pre-enforcement review of…
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
the regulations 27 explicitly charge the corps with taking cost
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
United States v. King Mountain Tobacco Co.
with a few exceptions . . . judicial review of agency action is limited to a review of the administrative record.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Bering Strait Citizens for Responsible Resource Development v. United States Army Corps of Engineers
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
the corps' regu- lations do not require the corps to undertake an independent investigation or to gather its own information upon which to base an ea.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Bering Strait Citizens for Responsible Resource Development v. United States Army Corps of Engineers
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
the corps' regulations do not require the corps to undertake an independent investigation or to gather its own information upon which to base an ea.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Citizens Alliance to Protect Our Wetlands v. Wynn
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
a court may consider evidence outside the administrative record as necessary to explain agency action.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Claude Sakr, Laura Jackson, and Margaret Skenderian v. City of Portland, United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, Scott Turner, and Home Forward
As an initial matter, "[a]n EA may be based entirely upon information supplied by the applicant and indeed may be prepared by an outside consulting firm." Friends of the Earth v. Hintz, 800 F.2d 822, 835 (9th Cir. 1986) ("Hintz").
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Atchafalaya Basinkeeper, Inc. v. Spellmon
Tex. July 27, 2023), affd on other grounds, 132 F.4th 872 (5th Cir. 2025); Friends of the Earth v. Hintz, 800 F.2d 822, 829 (9th Cir. 1986) (holding that where extra-record evidence “might have supplied a fuller record, but otherwise does not address issues not already there[, nJo further ‘background information’ [is] necessary for the court to review the record.”).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Kerr
Friends of the Earth v. Hintz, 25 800 F.2d 822, 828 (9th Cir. 1986).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Clean Water SoCal v. U.S. EPA
P. 26(a)(1)(B)(i); Hall v. 12 Norton, 266 F.3d 969, 977 (9th Cir. 2001); Northwest Motorcycle Ass’n v. United States Dep’t of Agric., 13 18 F.3d 1468, 1472 (9th Cir. 1994); Friends of the Earth v. Hintz, 800 F.2d 822, 829 (9th Cir. 1986); 14 Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729, 743-44 (1985). 15 2.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Ortiz v. United States Government
Friends of the Earth v. Hintz, 800 F.2d 822, 828 (9th Cir. 1986).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Green v. Department of Veterans Affairs
As the Government points out, 6 “[a] hallmark of judicial review under the arbitrary and capricious standard is that such 7 review is confined to the administrative record compiled by the agency.” Dkt. 126 at 6 8 (citing Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729 , 742–744 (1985); Friends of the 9 Earth v. Hintz, 800 F.2d 822, 828 (9th Cir. 1986)). 10 Green’s Motion to Strike the Government’s dispositive motion, Dkt. 129, is 11 DENIED. 12 The Government correctly articulates the standard against which Green’s APA 13 claim must be measured: 14 A district court must determine whe…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians v. United States Army Corps of Engineers
Mar. 25, 2020) (“[T]he Corps’ regulations do not require the Corps to undertake an independent investigation or to gather its own information upon which to base an EA”) (quoting Friends of the Earth v. Hintz, 800 F.2d 822, 834 (9th Cir. 1986)); Stop the Pipeline v. White, 233 F. Supp. 2d 957 , 967–68 (S.D.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bioscience Advisors, Inc. v. United States Securities and Exchange Commission
Nos. 47, 48, 49, 50 10 UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 Plaintiff requests that the Court issue a scheduling order permitting discovery in this case, 14 which involves three claims under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) and one claim 15 under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”). 16 “With a few exceptions, . . . judicial review of agency action is limited to a review of the 17 administrative record.” Friends of the Earth v. Hintz, 800 F.2d 822, 828 (9th Cir. 1986).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians v. United States Army Corps of Engineers
Mar. 25, 2020) (“[T]he Corps’ regulations do not require the Corps to . . . gather its own information upon which to base an EA”) (quoting Friends of the Earth v. Hintz, 800 F.2d 822, 834 (9th Cir. 1986)); Stop the Pipeline v. White, 233 F. Supp. 2d 957, 967-68 (S.D.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
L1 Technologies, Inc. v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Council v. Hodel, 840 F.2d 1432 , 1436 (9th Cir. 2 1988) (citing Friends of the Earth v. Hintz, 800 F.2d 822, 828 (9th Cir. 1986)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Atchafalaya Basinkeeper v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Doc. 86 at p. 27 (rejecting Plaintiffs’ argument that “the Corps simply dismissed the risk [of an oil spill] and referred the matter to PHMSA” as “meritless in light of the substantial attention given to the issue as set forth in both EAs.”). 133 40 C.F.R. § 1506.5 (a)-(b). 134 Friends of the Earth v. Hintz, 800 F.2d 822, 834 (9th Cir. 1986). 135 40 C.F.R. § 1506.5 (a)-(b). 136 Rec.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Conservation Congress v. United States Forest Service
The early emails- alone do not indicate that the Project in its final form is. “highly controversial.” See Friends of the Earth v. Hintz, 800 F.2d 822, 834 (9th Cir. 1986) (finding that early comments indicating a contrary position did not render the final decision arbitrary and capricious) (“Certainly, the Corps’ initial comments were preliminary and subject to change as understanding of permit issues expanded, the factual record developed, and the mitigation plan created.”), - d.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Safari Club International v. Jewell
Meat Packers Ass’n v. Butz, 526 F.2d 228, 239 (8th Cir. 1975); Friends of the Earth v. Hintz, 800 F.2d 822, 828-29 (9th Cir.1986); Am.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Center for Biological Diversity v. United States Environmental Protection Agency
(See 1st Mot. to Strike (Dkt. #50); 2d Mot. to Strike (Dkt. # 51); EPA Reply at 19-20.) Judicial review pursuant to the APA is based solely on the administrative record in existence at the time of the agency’s decision. 5 U.S.C. § 706 ; Camp v. Pitts, 411 U.S. 138, 142 , 93 S.Ct. 1241 , 36 L.Ed.2d 106 (1973); Friends of the Earth v. Hintz, 800 F.2d 822, 828 (9th Cir.1986).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Center for Biological Diversity v. United States Environmental Protection Agency
(See 1st Mot. to Strike (Dkt. # 50); 2d Mot. to Strike (Dkt. # 51); EPA Reply at 19-20.) Judicial review pursuant to the APA is based solely on the administrative record in existence at the time of the agency’s decision. 5 U.S.C. § 706 ; Camp v. Pitts, 411 U.S. 138, 142 , 93 S.Ct. 1241 , 36 L.Ed.2d 106 (1973); Friends of the Earth v. Hintz, 800 F.2d 822, 828 (9th Cir.1986).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Residents for Sane Trash Solutions, Inc. v. United States Army Corps of Engineers
Council, 722 F.3d at 1062-63 (“[The Corps] should be able to rely on [the per-mittee’s] analysis, if it is a responsible analysis, while conducting its own analysis of those factors that are within its competence .... ”); Friends of the Earth v. Hintz, 800 F.2d 822, 835-36 (9th Cir.1986) (preventing the Corps from relying on alternatives analyses conducted by permit applicants “would place unreasonable and unsuitable responsibilities” on the Corps).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hoosier Environmental Council v. United States Army Corps of Engineers
After all, it is permitted to rely (though not uncritically) on submissions by private permit applicants and on consultants, see Van Abbema v. Fornell, 807 F.2d 633, 638-42 (7th Cir.1986); Hillsdale Environmental Loss Prevention, Inc. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, supra, 702 F.3d at 1170-71 ; Greater Yellowstone Coalition v. Flowers, 359 F.3d 1257, 1270-71 (10th Cir.2004); Friends of the Earth v. Hintz, 800 F.2d 822, 834 (9th Cir.1986) (“the Corps’ regulations do not require the Corps to undertake an independent investigation or to gather its own information upon which to base” an env…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Para v. 1691 Ltd. Partnership
Rather, “the applicant’s purpose must be ‘legitimate.’” Id. (citing Friends of the Earth v. Hintz, 800 F.2d 822, 833-34 (9th Cir.1986)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Wildlands CPR, Inc. v. United States Forest Service
Additionally, Exhibit A is relevant to the question of “whether the agency considered all relevant factors or fully explicated its course of conduct or grounds of decision,” Friends of the Earth v. Hintz, 800 F.2d 822, 829 (9th Cir.1986), and it suggests the agency “relied on documents not in the record,” Fence Creek Cattle Co. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 602 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir.2010).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Butte Environmental Council v. United States Army Corps of Engineers
“The Corps’ ultimate decision was not a reversal but simply the culmination of [years] of investigations, meetings, and reports.” Friends of the Earth v. Hintz, 800 F.2d 822, 834 (9th Cir.1986). *946 Indeed, the process worked just as it should.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
South Yuba River Citizens League v. National Marine Fisheries Service
Id. at 1451 (quoting Friends of the Earth v. Hintz, 800 F.2d 822, 829 (9th Cir.1986)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Sierra Club v. Van Antwerp
Defs.’ Mem. in Opp’n to Summ J. at 14) (citing AR15348-9; Friends of the Earth v. Hintz, 800 F.2d 822, 834 (9th Cir.1986)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Butte Environmental Council v. United States Army Corps of Engineers
“The Corps’ ultimate decision was not a reversal but simply the culmination of [years] of investigations, meetings, and reports.” Friends of the Earth v. Hintz, 800 F.2d 822, 834 (9th Cir.1986).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Northwest Environmental Defense Center v. National Marine Fisheries Service
(2×)
Coast Fed’n of Fishermen’s Ass’ns v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 426 F.3d 1082, 1090 (9th Cir.2005) (ESA); Friends of the Earth v. Hintz, 800 F.2d 822, 830-31 (9th Cir.1986) (RHA); Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr. v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 387 F.3d 989 , 992 (9th Cir.2004) (NEPA).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Shasta Resources Council v. United States Department of the Interior
Friends of the Earth v. Hintz, 800 F.2d 822, 831 (9th Cir.1986).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sierra Club v. Van Antwerp
Reported decisions provide additional examples: Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n v. Whistler, 27 F.3d 1341 , 1345-46 (8th Cir.1994) (providing-boat access to a housing development); Korteweg v. United States Army Corps of Eng’rs, 650 F.Supp. 603, 605 (D.Conn.1986) (boat slips for residential development); Friends of the Earth v. Hintz, 800 F.2d 822, 835 (9th Cir.1986) (constructing a sorting yard for logs waiting to be transported by ocean cargo carriers).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Wild Bainbridge v. Mainlander Services Corp.
STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard of review for an agency’s determination to issue a Section 404 permit under the CWA is found in the Administrative Procedures Act, which provides that a reviewing court shall set aside only agency action found to be “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706 (2)(A); Friends of the Earth v. Hintz, 800 F.2d 822, 830-31 (9th Cir.1986).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Border Power Plant Working Group v. Department of Energy
Under this “highly deferential” standard of review, “the court ‘must consider whether the decision was based on a consideration of the relevant factors and whether there has been a clear error of judgment.’ ” Friends of the Earth v. Hintz, 800 F.2d 822, 831 (9th Cir.1986) (quoting Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 416 , 91 S.Ct. 814 , 28 L.Ed.2d 136 (1971)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Tri-Valley Cares v. Department of Energy
Review of agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706 (2), is “highly deferential.” Friends of the Earth v. Hintz, 800 F.2d 822, 881 (9th Cir.1986).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Oregon Natural Desert Ass'n v. Rasmussen
Friends of the Earth v. Hintz, 800 F.2d 822, 831 (9th Cir.1986).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
LEAGUE OF WILD. DEFEN. v. US Forest Serv.
The agency's action may not be set aside so long as it has a "rational basis." Prairie Wood Products v. Glickman, 971 F.Supp. 457, 462 (D.Or. 1997) (citing Bowman Transp., Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc., 419 U.S. 281, 290 , 95 S.Ct. 438 , 42 L.Ed.2d 447 (1974); Friends of the Earth v. Hintz, 800 F.2d 822, 831 (9th Cir.1986)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
League of Wilderness Defenders-Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project v. United States Forest Service
The agency’s action may not be set aside so long as it has a “rational basis.” Prairie Wood Products v. Glickman, 971 F.Supp. 457, 462 (D.Or.1997) (citing Bowman Transp., Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc., 419 U.S. 281, 290 , 95 S.Ct. 438 , 42 L.Ed.2d 447 (1974); Friends of the Earth v. Hintz, 800 F.2d 822, 831 (9th Cir.1986)).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Sierra Club v. Flowers
(3×)
Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Hintz, 800 F.2d 822, 835 (9th Cir.1986) (upholding agency decision that a sorting yard for logs waiting to be exported was “water-dependent” under those specific circumstances, noting that Corps is not “a business consulting firm” required to affirmatively seek out alternatives, but that the Corps had “exhaustively studied” the information before making its decision).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
League of Wilderness Defenders—Blue Mountain Biodiversity Project v. Bosworth
Judicial review of an agency action is generally limited to the administrative record. 1 Friends of the Earth v. Hintz, 800 F.2d 822, 828 (9th Cir.1986).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
LEAGUE OF WILDER. DEFENDERS-BLUE MOUN. BIODIVERSITY PROJECT v. Bosworth
Judicial review of an agency action is generally limited to the administrative record. [1] Friends of the Earth v. Hintz, 800 F.2d 822, 828 (9th Cir.1986).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Guardianship and Conservatorship of Blunt
See generally Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. at 743-744 , 105 S.Ct. 1598 ; Camp v. Pitts, 411 U.S. 138, 142-143 , 93 S.Ct. 1241 , 36 L.Ed.2d 106 (1973); Esch v. Yeutter, 876 F.2d 976 , 992 n. 166 (D.C.Cir.1989); Friends of the Earth v. Hintz, 800 F.2d 822, 828-829 (9th Cir.1986); Asarco, Inc. v. U.S. E.P.A., 616 F.2d 1153, 1158-61 (9th Cir.1980).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Protect Our Water v. Flowers
See Wetlands Action Network v. United States Army Corps of Eng’rs, 222 F.3d 1105 , 1114 (9th Cir.2000) (applying the “arbitrary and capricious” standard to the agency’s decision not to prepare an EIS); Friends of the Earth v. Hintz, 800 F.2d 822, 830-31 (9th Cir.1986) (applying the “arbitrary and capricious” standard to the agency’s decision to issue a section 404 permit under the CWA); Pacific Coast Fed’n of Fishermen’s Ass’ns v. United States Bureau of Reclamation, 138 F.Supp.2d 1228, 1239 (N.D.Cal.2001) (applying the “arbitrary and capricious” standard to review of a…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Montana Wilderness Ass'n v. Fry
Friends of the Earth v. Hintz, 800 F.2d 822, 828-29 (9th Cir.1986).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Protect Our Water v. Flowers
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Judicial review of actions by administrative agencies is governed by 5 U.S.C. § 706 (2)(A), which states that a reviewing court must set aside agency actions found to be “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law.” See Wetlands Action Network v. United States Army Corps of Eng’rs, 222 F.3d 1105 , 1114 (9th Cir.2000) (applying the “arbitrary and capricious” standard to the agency’s decision not to prepare an EIS); Friends of the Earth v. Hintz, 800 F.2d 822, 830-31 (9th Cir.1986) (applying the “arbitrary and capricious” standard …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Greater Yellowstone Coalition v. Flowers
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Wildlife Fed’n, Inc. v. York, 761 F.2d 1044, 1048 (5th Cir.1985) (per curiam)), as long as this objective is “ ‘legitimate,’” id. (quoting Friends of the Earth v. Hintz, 800 F.2d 822, 833 (9th Cir.1986)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Airport Communities Coalition v. Graves
(2×)
Safety Bd., 80 F.3d 364, 368 (9th Cir.1996); Friends of the Earth v. Hintz, 800 F.2d 822, 831 (9th Cir.1986) (“court may not set aside agency action as arbi *1212 trary or capricious unless there is no rational basis for the action”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Baccarat Fremont Developers v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
The Ninth Circuit has held, “The task of the reviewing court is to apply the appropriate APA standard of review, 5 U.S.C. § 706 , to the agency decision based on the record the agency presents to the reviewing court.” Friends of the Earth v. Hintz, 800 F.2d 822, 829 (9th Cir.1986); Southwest Center, 100 F.3d at 1450-51.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Border Power Plant Working Group v. Department of Energy
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Friends of the Earth v. Hintz, 800 F.2d 822, 828 (9th Cir.1986).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Northwest Environmental Advocates v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
The court may not find an agency action to be “arbitrary or capricious unless there is no rational basis for the action.” Friends of the Earth v. Hintz, 800 F.2d 822, 831 (9th Cir.1986) (citing Warm Springs Dam Task Force v. Gribble, 621 F.2d 1017, 1027 (9th Cir.1980)).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Ernesta B. BARNES, Et Al., Petitioners,
v.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR the WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, and Time Oil Company, Real Party in Interest
v.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR the WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, and Time Oil Company, Real Party in Interest
86-7040.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Aug 13, 1986.
Kathleen P. Dewey, Robert L. Klarquist, U.S. Dept, of Justice, Washington, D.C., for petitioners., William H. Bode, Donald W. Fowler, Spriggs, Bode & Hollingsworth, Washington, D.C., Terrill L. Henderson, Jackson J. Fox, U.S. Atty., Seattle, Wash., for respondent.
Schroeder, Farris, Brunetti.
Cited by 15 opinions | Published
ORDER
The petition for a writ of mandamus is granted. The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. § 9601 et seq. does not authorize pre-enforcement review of Environmental Protection Agency orders. See Wheaton Industries v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 781 F.2d 354, 356 (3d Cir.1986); J.V. Peters & Co., Inc. v. Administrator, EPA, 767 F.2d 263, 265 (6th Cir.1985). The district court is directed to enter judgment dismissing the complaint.
A certified copy of this order shall act as and for the mandate of the court.