green
Positive treatment
Trending · 83 recent citers
Quoted verbatim 3×
66.4 score
G Cite
cited 4× by 2 distinct cases ·
…reviewing court focus upon a proposal's parameters as the agency defines them
at p. 800
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 2003 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2003
2014
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Pacific Rivers Council v. United States Forest Service
(8×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
reviewing court focus upon a proposal's parameters as the agency defines them
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Pacific Rivers Council v. United States Forest Service
(8×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
reviewing court focus upon a proposal's parameters as the agency defines them
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Friends of Yosemite Valley v. Kempthorne
(8×)
also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see"
he secretarial guidelines do not specify that this obligation can be satisfied only by capping the number of visitors
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Citizens for Constitutional Integrity v. United States
See Gwaltney of Smithfield, Ltd. v. Chesapeake Bay Found., Inc., 484 U.S. 49, 60 (1987) (stating that the purpose of a similar notice provision under the Clean Water Act was to give the alleged violator a chance to bring itself into complete compliance and render the suit unnecessary); see also Water Keeper All. v. U.S. Dep’t of Def., 271 F.3d 21, 29 (1st Cir. 2001) (concluding that a similar requirement for a suit under the Endangered Species Act requires notice of 60 days in order to provide “agencies with an opportunity to resolve the dispute and take any necessary corrective measures b…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Cascadia Wildlands v. Adcock
Reviewing courts “may not rubber-stamp . . . administrative decisions that they deem inconsistent with a statutory mandate or that frustrate the congressional policy underlying a statute.” Friends of Yosemite Valley v. Norton, 348 F.3d 789, 793 (9th Cir. 2003) (alteration in original) (quoting Pub.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Raymond Tate v. United States
Friends of Yosemite Valley v. Norton, 348 F.3d 789, 793 (9th Cir. 2003).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation v. Shea
“A programmatic EIS must provide ‘sufficient detail to foster informed decision-making,’ but an agency need not fully evaluate site-specific impacts ‘until a critical decision has been made to act on site development.’” ‘Ilio’ulakalani Coalition v. Rumsfeld, 464 F.3d 1093, 1094 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Friends of Yosemite Valley v. Norton, 348 F.3d 789, 800 (9th Cir. 2003)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Naec v. Usdoi
(2×)
USDOI possible under the circumstances, thereby ‘provid[ing] sufficient detail to foster informed decision-making’ at the stage in question.” Native Village of Point Hope, 740 F.3d at 498 (quoting Friends of Yosemite Valley, 348 F.3d at 800).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Naec v. Usdoi
(2×)
“We will defer to the agency’s judgment about the appropriate level of analysis so long as the EIS provides as much environmental analysis as is reasonably possible under the circumstances, thereby ‘provid[ing] sufficient detail to foster informed decision-making’ at the stage in question.” Native Village of Point Hope, 740 F.3d at 498 (quoting Friends of Yosemite Valley, 348 F.3d at 800).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sierra Trail Dogs Motorcycle and Recreation Club v. United States Forest Service
(ECF 23 No. 45 at 15 (relying on Friends of Yosemite Valley v. Norton, 348 F.3d 789, 800 (9th Cir. 24 2003), opinion clarified, 366 F.3d 731 (9th Cir. 2004).) See also Norton, 348 F.3d at 800 25 (explaining that an “agency’s planning and management decisions may occur at two 26 distinct administrative levels”). 27 /// 28 /// 1 In sum, Federal Defendants did not violate NEPA as pertinent to Plaintiffs’ 2 challenge in this case.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Southeast Alaska Conservation Council v. United States Forest Service
Watersheds Proj. v. Abbey, 719 F.3d 1035, 1049 (9th Cir. 2013) (noting that agencies can plan at programmatic or site-specific levels and that “[w]hen an agency develops an EIS for a programmatic plan . . . , the EIS ‘must provide “sufficient detail to foster informed decision-making,” but “site-specific impacts need not be fully evaluated until a critical decision has been made to act on site development”’” (quoting Friends of Yosemite Valley v. Norton, 348 F.3d 789, 800 (9th Cir. 2003))); see also 40 C.F.R. § 1502.20 (NEPA regulation encouraging tiering to “eliminate repet…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Protect Our Communities v. Darryl Lacounte
LACOUNTE 17 the site-specific environmental assessment. 3 “Site-specific impacts,” we reasoned, must be evaluated once the “critical decision has been made to act on site development.” Id. at 1049 (quoting Friends of Yosemite Valley v. Norton, 348 F.3d 789, 800 (9th Cir. 2003), opinion clarified, 366 F.3d 731 (9th Cir. 2004)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Montana Environmental Info. v. Debra Thomas
THOMAS Agency acted arbitrarily and capriciously “rests on whether it articulated a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.” Friends of Yosemite Valley v. Norton, 348 F.3d 789, 793 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted), opinion clarified, 366 F.3d 731 (9th Cir. 2004).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sierra Club v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
See Friends of the Wild Swan v. Weber, 767 F.3d 936, 943 (9th Cir. 2014) (stating that agency must balance need' for comprehensive analysis against considerations of practicality); Friends of Yosemite Valley v. Norton, 348 F.3d 789, 800-01 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that deferral of site-specific analysis was proper under NEPA for program-wide EIS), clarified by 366 F.3d 731 (9th Cir. 2004).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Western Watersheds Project v. James Kenna
“An EIS for a programmatic plan ... must provide ‘sufficient detail to foster informed decision-making,’ but ‘site-specific impacts need not be fully evaluated until a critical decision has been made to act on site development.’ ” Friends of Yosemite Valley v. Norton, 348 F.3d 789, 800 (9th Cir.2003) (quoting N. Alaska Envtl.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Natural Resources Defense Council v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Accordingly, we will “hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be ... arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706 (2)(A). “[We] review the record to ensure that agency decisions are founded on a reasoned evaluation of the relevant factors, and may not rubberstamp ... administrative decisions that [are] inconsistent with a statutory mandate or that frustrate the congressional policy underlying a statute.... ” Latino Issues Forum v. EPA, 558 F.3d 936, 941 (9th Cir.2009) (quoting Friends of Y…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Nrdc v. Usepa
Accordingly, we will “hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be . . . arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706 (2)(A). “[We] review the record to ensure that agency decisions are founded on a reasoned evaluation of the relevant factors, and may not rubberstamp . . . administrative decisions that [are] inconsistent with a statutory mandate or that frustrate the congressional policy underlying a statute . . . .” Latino Issues Forum v. EPA, 558 F.3d 936, 941 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Frie…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Native Village of Point Hope v. Sally Jewell
Friends of Yosemite Valley, 348 F.3d at 800 (internal quotation marks omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Native Village of Point Hope v. Sally Jewell
Friends of Yosemite Valley, 348 F.3d at 800 (internal quotation marks omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Native Village of Point Hope v. Sally Jewell
(2×)
Friends of Yosemite Valley, 348 F.3d at 800 (internal quotation marks omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Merced Irrigation District v. County of Mariposa
The remainder of the [Merced River’s] designated portion is administered by the Secretary of the Interior through the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management.” Friends of Yosemite Valley v. Norton, 348 F.3d 789, 794-95 (9th Cir.2003), as clarified by Friends of Yosemite Valley v. Norton, 366 F.3d 731 (9th Cir.2004). .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Deacon v. Pandora Media, Inc.
Friends of Yosemite Valley v. Norton, 348 F.3d 789, 796 (9th Cir.2003). “[Cjourts routinely rely on dictionary definitions” to ascertain a term’s plain meaning.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Karuk Tribe v. United States Forest Service
(2×)
This conflicts with our long- standing rule that “NEPA requires a full evaluation of site- specific impacts only when a ‘critical decision’ has been made to act on site development—i.e., when ‘the agency proposes to make an irreversible and irretrievable commitment of the availability of resources to [a] project at a particular site.’ ” Friends of Yosemite Valley v. Norton, 348 F.3d 789, 801 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting California v. Block, 690 F.2d 753, 761 (9th Cir. 1982)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Wilderness Watch v. Iwamoto
Friends of Yosemite Valley v. Norton, 348 F.3d 789, 793 (9th Cir.2003) (citations, internal quotation marks, and alterations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
High Sierra Hikers Ass'n v. United States Department of the Interior
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
In assessing the adequacy of an agency’s EIS, courts apply the “rule of reason” standard which determines whether the EIS contains a “reasonably thorough discussion” of the “probable environmental consequences.” Cal. v. Block, 690 F.2d 753 , 761 (9th Cir.1982); Friends of Yosemite Valley v. Norton, 348 F.3d 789, 801 (9th Cir.2003) (equating the “rule of reason” standard to an abuse of discretion review).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sierra Club v. United States Environmental Protection Agency
“This standard requires the EPA to ‘articulate [ ] a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.’ ” Id. (quoting Ariz. Cattle Growers’ Ass’n v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife, 273 F.3d 1229, 1236 (9th Cir.2001)). “[We] review the record to ensure that agency decisions are founded on a reasoned evaluation of the relevant factors, and may not rubberstamp ... administrative decisions that [are] inconsistent with a statutory mandate or that frustrate the congressional policy underlying a statute.... ” Id. (quoting Friends of Yosemite Valley v. Norton, 348 F.3d 789, 793 (…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In re Montana Wilderness Ass'n
Cf. Friends of Yosemite Valley v. Norton, 348 F.3d 789, 796-97 (9th Cir.2003) (not reviewing resource management plan).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Defenders of Wildlife v. Hall
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Friends of Yosemite Valley v, Norton, 348 F.3d 789, 801 (9th Cir.2003). *988 The Service did not have to perform site-specific analysis in the environmental assessment because no wolf removal plans had been submitted.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Organized Village of Kake v. United States Department of Agriculture
Friends of Yosemite Valley v. Norton, 348 F.3d 789, 793 (9th Cir.2003) (quoting Pub.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
California Wilderness Coalition v. U.S. Department of Energy
(2×)
Ctr v. Kempthorne, 457 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir.2006) (noting that an EIS was prepared for agency action making entire Northwest Petroleum Reserve available for oil and gas leasing despite the lack of "site specific analysis for particular locations where drilling might occur"); Friends of Yosemite Valley v. Norton, 348 F.3d 789, 800-01 (9th Cir.2003) (evaluating programmatic EIS for land use plan for national park); [26] Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project v. Blackwood, 161 F.3d 1208, 1213 (9th Cir.1998) (finding EA inadequate and requiring EIS for log-salvaging plan for national forest). [27] …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Wilderness Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
(2×)
Friends of Yosemite Valley v. Norton, 348 F.3d 789, 793 (9th Cir.2003) (citation, internal quotation marks, and alterations omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Sierra Club v. Kimbell
Friends of Yosemite Valley v. Norton, 348 F.3d 789, 800 (9th Cir.2003) (internal quotations omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Mohammad Salameh v. Peter Carlson
Friends of Yosemite Valley v. Norton, 348 F.3d 789, 793 (9th Cir.2003).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Foster Poultry Farms, Inc. v. Suntrust Bank
Friends of Yosemite Valley v. Norton, 348 F.3d 789, 793 (9th Cir.2003).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co. v. Desert Valley Financial LLC
“We review the district court’s findings of fact after a bench trial for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo.” Friends of Yosemite Valley v. Norton, 348 F.3d 789, 793 (9th Cir.2003).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
U-Haul International v. Lumbermens Mutual
Friends of Yosemite Valley v. Norton, 348 F.3d 789, 793 (9th Cir. 2003).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
U-Haul International, Inc. v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co.
Friends of Yosemite Valley v. Norton, 348 F.3d 789, 793 (9th Cir.2003).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Overton
“The same test applies to both jury and bench trials.” Doe, 136 F.3d at 636 ; Friends of Yosemite Valley v. Norton, 348 F.3d 789, 793 (9th Cir.2003).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Walter Overton
“The same test applies to both jury and bench trials.” Doe, 136 F.3d at 636 ; Friends of Yosemite Valley v. Norton, 348 F.3d 789, 793 (9th Cir. 2003).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Overton
“The same test applies to both jury and bench trials.” Doe, 136 F.3d at 636 ; Friends of Yosemite Valley v. Norton, 348 F.3d 789, 793 (9th Cir. 2003).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Latino Issues Forum v. Usepa
Friends of Yosemite Valley v. Norton, 348 F.3d 789, 793 (9th Cir. 2003) (alterations in original) (citation and internal quota- tion marks omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Latino Issues Forum v. United States Environmental Protection Agency
(2×)
Friends of Yosemite Valley v. Norton, 348 F.3d 789, 793 (9th Cir.2003) (alterations in original) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sierra Club v. Kimbell
See, e.g., ‘Ilio'ulaokalani Coalition v. Rumsfeld, 464 F.3d 1083, 1095-96 (9th Cir.2006) (discussing the level of detail required in programmatic and site-specific ElSes); Nevada v. Dep't of Energy, 457 F.3d 78, 93 (D.C.Cir.2006) (rejecting challenge to a programmatic EIS); Friends of Yosemite Valley v. Norton, 348 F.3d 789, 800 (9th Cir.2003) ("An EIS for a programmatic plan ... must provide sufficient detail to foster informed decision-making, but site-specific impacts need not be fully evaluated until a critical decision has been made to act on site development.”) (quotations omitted); …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Center for Biological Diversity v. Marina Point Development Co.
Harass means “an intentional or negligent act or omission which 15 See Friends of Yosemite Valley v. Norton, 348 F.3d 789, 793 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Silver v. Executive Car Leasing Long-Term Disability Plan, 466 F.3d 727, 732-33 (9th Cir. 2006).” 9940 CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL v. MARINA POINT DEVELOPMENT creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns . . . .” 50 C.F.R. § 17.3 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sun Pacific Farming Cooperative, Inc. v. Sun World International, Inc.
This court reviews “the district court’s findings of fact after a bench trial for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo.” Friends of Yosemite Valley v. Norton, 348 F.3d 789, 793 (9th Cir.2003).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Agha v. Rosengren
Friends of Yosemite Valley v. Norton, 348 F.3d 789, 793 (9th Cir.2003).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Friends of Yosemite v. Kempthorne
(7×)
also: Cited "see"
Analyzing the plain meaning of the terms within the phrase “address . . . user capacities” as well the Secretarial Guide- lines, we interpreted the requirement to “address . . . user capacities” to mean that the CMP must include “specific mea- surable limits on use.” Id. at 797 (emphasis added). “[T]he plain meaning of the phrase ‘address . . . user capacities,’ is simply that the CMP must deal with or discuss the maximum number of people that can be received at a WSRS.” Id. at 796 (emphasis added).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Southeast Alaska Conservation Council v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Labs., Inc., 471 U.S. 707, 714-16 , 105 S.Ct. 2371 , 85 L.Ed.2d 714 (1985); Friends of Yosemite Valley v. Norton, 348 F.3d 789, 797 (9th Cir.2003); League of Wilderness Defenders/Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project v. Forsgren, 309 F.3d 1181, 1189-90 (9th Cir.2002); Kentuckians for the Commonwealth, Inc. v. Rivenburgh, 317 F.3d 425, 446-47 (4th Cir.2003).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Southeast Alaska Conservation Council v. United States Army Corps of Engineers
Labs., Inc., 471 U.S. 707, 714-16 , 105 S.Ct. 2371 , 85 L.Ed.2d 714 (1985); Friends of Yosemite Valley v. Norton, 348 F.3d 789, 797 (9th Cir.2003); League of Wilderness Defenders/Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project v. Forsgren, 309 F.3d 1181, 1189-90 (9th Cir.2002); Kentuckians for the Commonwealth, Inc. v. Rivenburgh, 317 F.3d 425, 446-47 (4th Cir.2003).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
'Ilio'Ulaokalani Coalition v. Rumsfeld
(2×)
A programmatic EIS must provide “sufficient detail to foster informed decision-making,” but an agency need not fully evaluate site- specific impacts “until a critical decision has been made to act on site development.” Friends of Yosemite Valley v. Norton, 348 F.3d 789, 800 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting N. Alaska Envtl.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Jonathon Marc SUTTER, Defendant-Appellant
v.
Jonathon Marc SUTTER, Defendant-Appellant
02-50282.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Nov 4, 2003.
Ross E. Viselman, San Diego, CA, for the defendant-appellant., Roger W. Haines, Jr., and Francisco J. Sanchez, Jr., Assistant United States Attorneys, Criminal Division, San Diego, CA for the plaintiff-appellee.
Tashima, Berzon, Clifton.
Published
Citer courts: Ninth Circuit (1)
ORDER
The Opinion filed on August 25, 2003 [340 F.3d 1022], is amended as follows:
1) At slip op., p. 11983, paragraph 3, 2d line [340 F.3d at 1027], change “Sutter’s indictment on September 18, 2001” to “Sutter’s arraignment on September 18, 2001.”
2) At slip op., p. 11983, paragraph 3, line 5 [340 F.3d at 1027], change “October 22, 2002” to “October 22, 2001.”
3) At slip op., p. 11992, paragraph 11, line 7 [340 F.3d at 1032], add the words “of the discovery dispute” after “settlement” and before the closing parenthetical.
With these amendments, the panel has unanimously voted to deny appellant’s petition for rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc.
The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc, and no judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. Fed. R.App. P. 85.
The petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED.