green
Positive treatment
31.1 score
Treatment trajectory · 2011 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2011
2018
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 19 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Skagit County Dike Drainage and Irrigation Improvement District No 12 v. National Marine Fisheries Service
“An agency complies with the best available science standard so long 2 as it does not ignore available studies, even if it disagrees with or discredits them.” Id. 3 “The determination of what constitutes the best scientific data available belongs to the 4 agency's special expertise and warrants substantial deference.” Friends of Santa Clara River v. 5 U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs, 887 F.3d 906, 924 (9th Cir. 2018) (quoting Jewell, 747 F.3d at 602 ) 6 (simplified); Forest Guardians v. U.S. Forest Serv., 641 F.3d 423, 442 (10th Cir. 2011) (it is not 7 the role of the court to weigh competin…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
WildEarth Guardians v. United States Forest Service
Although “a party may cite studies that support a conclusion different from the one the Forest Service reached, it is not [the court’s] role to weigh competing scientific analyses.”92 Courts “grant considerable discretion and deference to federal agencies on matters that require a high level of technical or scientific 89 See AOB, supra note 2, at 21-24. 90 Forest Plan, supra note 28, at FSAR 000856. 91 Id. at FSAR 000856. 92 Forest Guardians v. U.S. Forest Serv., 641 F.3d 423, 442 (10th Cir. 2011) (quoting Ecology Ctr. v. Cataneda, 574 F.3d 652, 659 (10th Cir. 2009). expertise.”93 To…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Schreiber v. Cuccinelli
Forest Guardians v. U.S. Forest Serv., 641 F.3d 423, 430 (10th Cir. 2011).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
WildEarth Guardians v. Bernhardt
(2×)
Claims not properly raised before an agency are waived, unless the problems underlying the claims are ‘obvious’ or otherwise brought to the agency’s attention.” Forest Guardians v. U.S. Forest Serv., 641 F.3d 423, 430 (10th Cir. 2011) (citing 7 U.S.C. § 6912 (e)5; 36 C.F.R. § 215.21 ) (internal quotations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kansas ex rel. Kansas Department for Children & Families v. SourceAmerica
But “judicially created exhaustion requirements are ‘subject to numerous exceptions.’ ” Forest Guardians v. U.S. Forest Serv., 641 F.3d 423, 432 (10th Cir. 2011) (quoting McKart, 395 U.S. at 193 , 89 S.Ct. 1657 ).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Jarita Mesa Livestock Grazing Ass'n v. United States Forest Service
(14×)
also: Cited "see"
Their claims were therefore insufficient to put the Forest Service on notice of the claims they now raise.” See Forest Guardians v. United States Forest Serv., 641 F.3d at 430-31 (requiring the plaintiffs to raise the substance of the claim sufficiently to put the agency on notice of how the plaintiffs believe the agency violated the law); Idaho Sporting Congress Inc. v. Rittenhouse, 305 F.3d at 965-66 (same).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Jarita Mesa Livestock Grazing Ass'n v. United States Forest Service
(9×)
also: Cited "see"
They assert that in the Tenth Circuit’s subsequent decision in Forest Guardians v. U.S. Forest Service, the Tenth Circuit “noted that ‘Administrative exhaustion is often an affirmative defense, rather than a jurisdictional prerequisite.’ ” Response at 4 (quoting Forest Guardians v. U.S. Forest Serv., 641 F.3d at 431).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Biodiversity Conservation Alliance v. Jiron
(2×)
Both rely on science, and “it is not our role to weigh competing scientific analyses.” Forest Guardians, 641 F.3d at 442 (quotations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jech v. Department of Interior
The futility exception may apply where (1) the agency “lacked the authority or the ability to resolve [the dispute],” (2) the case presents “purely a question of statutory interpretation,” or (3) “the court would not benefit from allowing the [agency] to develop a full administrative record on the issue.” Forest Guardians v. U.S. Forest Serv., 641 F.3d 423, 433 (10th Cir. 2011) (per curiam).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Wyoming v. United States Department of Agriculture
Under *1227 the APA, we review the district court’s decision de novo, Forest Guardians, 641 F.3d at 428, but we will not overturn the agency’s action unless it is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706 (2)(A); accord New Mexico ex rel.
discussed
Cited "see"
Devon Energy Production Company v. DOI
See Proctor & Gamble Co. v. Haugen, 222 F.3d 1262, 1273 (10th Cir. 2000). 4 “The Supreme Court’s decision in SEC v. Chenery Corporation stands for the proposition that a reviewing court may not affirm an agency decision based on reasoning that the agency itself never considered in its administrative proceedings.” Forest Guardians v. U.S. Forest Serv., 641 F.3d 423, 435 (10th Cir. 2011) (citing SEC v. Chenery Corporation, 318 U.S. 80, 87 (1943)).
discussed
Cited "see"
Carr v. Commissioner, SSA
See Forest Guardians v. U.S. Forest Serv., 641 F.3d 423 , 431 n.6 (10th Cir. 2011) (“In practice, the requirement that plaintiffs exhaust their administrative remedies greatly minimizes the threat of sandbagging—i.e., the concern that plaintiffs will shirk their duty to raise claims before the agency, only to present new evidence at trial that undermines the agency’s decision.” (quotations omitted and alterations incorporated)). 10 Assuming, as we have found, issue exhaustion is required, Appellees urge us to excuse their failure to raise their Appointments Clause challenge before the …
discussed
Cited "see"
Chissoe v. Zinke
See Forest Guardians v. U.S. Forest Serv., 641 F.3d 423 , 8 430-31 (10th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (per curiam) (discussing scope of issues presented to agency for administrative exhaustion purposes); see also Def.’s Response Br., Aplt.
cited
Cited "see"
Gilmore v. Weatherford
See Forest Guardians v. U.S. Forest Serv., 641 F.3d 423, 430 (10th Cir. 2011).
discussed
Cited "see"
San Juan Citizens Alliance v. Stiles
See Forest Guardians v. U.S. Forest Service, 641 F.3d 423 , 430 (10th Cir.2011) (“Plaintiffs must exhaust available administrative remedies before the [Forest Service] prior to bringing their grievances to federal court.”) Accordingly, we hold that the approval of the Bull Canyon wells could not have violated the Area 9A standards because the well pads and their associated construction are not within Area 9A.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
St. Bernard Parish Government v. United States
Corp. , 440 F.3d 992 , 999-1000 (8th Cir. 2006) ; McBride Cotton & Cattle Corp. v. Veneman , 290 F.3d 973 , 980 (9th Cir. 2002) ; see also Forest Guardians v. U.S. Forest Serv. , 641 F.3d 423 , 432 (10th Cir. 2011) (declining to decide whether the exhaustion requirement is jurisdictional, but finding that it is mandatory).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Ryser v. State
Ed. 2d 1097 [2006], that a “statutory requirement will not be deemed jurisdictional unless the statute itself reflects a clear indication that the legislature wanted the requirements to be jurisdictional”); see also Forest Guardians v. U.S. Forest Service, 641 F.3d 423, 431-33 (10th Cir. 2011) (discussing jurisdictional and nonjurisdictional exhaustion); Avocados Plus Inc. v. Veneman, 370 F.3d 1243, 1247 (D.C.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Native Ecosystems Council & Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. United States Forest Service ex rel. Davey
Similarly, 7 U.S.C. § 6912 (e) requires that “a person shall exhaust all administrative appeal procedures ... before the person may bring an action in a court.” It is not enough to raise some issues in an administrative appeal: “[Cjlaims raised at the administrative appeal and in the complaint must be so similar that the district court can ascertain that the agency was on notice of, and had an opportunity to consider and decide, the same claims now raised in federal court.” Kleissler v. U.S. Forest Serv., 183 F.3d 196, 202 (3d Cir.1999); see also Forest Guardians v. U.S. Forest Serv.,…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Native Ecosystems Council v. Weldon
More pointedly, Native Ecosystems’s concern that the Forest Service fails to demonstrate in the EA that it has set aside sufficient old growth habitat for goshawks ignores the very purpose of the Jimtown Project-creation of a landscape that permits large trees to mature into old growth.”); see also Forest Guardians v. U.S. Forest Serv., 641 F.3d 423 , 440-43 (10th Cir.2011). 2.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
FOREST GUARDIANS; Carson Forest Watch, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
United States FOREST SERVICE, Defendant-Appellee.
v.
United States FOREST SERVICE, Defendant-Appellee.
06-2306.
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Mar 8, 2010.
641 F.3d 423
Henry, Chief Judge, Tacha, Kelly, Briscoe, Lucero, Murphy, Hartz, O'brien, Tymkovich, Gorsuch, and Holmes, Circuit Judges.
Published
Steven Sugarman, Belin & Sugarman, Alletta D'A. Belin, Land and Water Fund of the Rockies, Santa Fe, NM, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Jan Elizabeth Mitchell, Asst. U.S. Attorney, David C. Iglesias, U.S. Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, District of New Mexico, Andrew A. Smith, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Albuquerque, NM, David C. Shilton, United States Department of Justice, Environment & Natural Resources Division, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before HENRY, Chief Judge, TACHA, KELLY, BRISCOE, LUCERO, MURPHY, HARTZ, O'BRIEN, TYMKOVICH, GORSUCH, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
This matter is before the court on the appellants' Petition For Panel Or En Banc Rehearing. We also have a response from the United States Forest Service. Both the petition and response were circulated to all of the judges of the court who are in regular active service. A poll was called, and a majority voted to grant rehearing an banc. Consequently, the appellants' petition is GRANTED.
On or before April 23, 2010, the appellants shall file a supplemental brief, limited to 20 pages in length in a 13 point font, addressing the issues raised and arguments addressed in Section II B of the majority opinion issued on August 26, 2009, and the dissent which accompanied that decision. On or before Friday June 4, 2010, the Forest Service shall file a supplemental response addressing the same issues. The appellants may submit an optional reply, limited to 10 pages in length, within 10 days of service of the response brief.
All of the supplemental briefs shall be filed using the court's Electronic Case Filing system. In addition, within 2 business days of the ECF filing, 15 hard copies of the briefs must be received in the clerk's office. We also direct both parties to submit an additional 10 hard copies of their original merits briefs at the time the hard copies of the supplemental briefs are submitted.
This matter will be heard on the court's September 2010 argument calendar. That calendar is currently set for the week of[*1129] September 20, 2010. The parties will be advised of the exact day and time for the argument when the calendar is finalized.