Platte River Whooping Crane Critical Habitat Maintenance Trust v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (1989)
green
· 86 citation events
across 10 courts.
Showing the 18 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 1989 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
198920072026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
Platte River Whooping Crane Critical Habitat Maintenance Trust v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (1992)
A 53-mile stretch of the “Big Bend” reach of the river has been designated as “critical habitat” for the whooping crane, and in 1978 the Platte River Whooping Crane Critical Habitat Maintenance Trust (Trust) was established to “ ‘protect and maintain ... the physical, hydrological and biological integrity of [the] area so that it may continue to function as a life-support system for the whooping crane and other migratory species which utilize it.’ ” Platte River I, 876 F.2d …
green
Platte River Whooping Crane Critical Habitat Maintenance Trust v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, State… (1992)
A 53-mile stretch of the "Big Bend" reach of the river has been designated as "critical habitat" for the whooping crane, and in 1978 the Platte River Whooping Crane Critical Habitat Maintenance Trust (Trust) was established to " 'protect and maintain ... the physical, hydrological and biological integrity of [the] area so that it may continue to function as a life-support system for the whooping crane and other migratory species which utilize it.' " Platte River I, 876 F.2d …
green
California Trout, Inc. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Southern California Edison Company (2002)
While the Commission’s issuance of project licenses under § 4(e) of the Act is subject to the State certification requirement of § 401, see Keating v. FERC, 927 F.2d 616, 619 (D.C.Cir.1991), the issuance of annual licenses is- a “non-discretionary act, in that the Commission has no choice but to issue the licenses to the existing licensees.” Platte I, 876 F.2d at 114 (citations omitted).
citations omitted
green
State of Nebraska, the National Wildlife Federation Nebraska Wildlife Federation National Audubon Society, Po… (1994)
Platte River Whooping Crane, 876 F.2d at 112. 12 The district court found that the Trust's participation in the FERC proceedings was designed to persuade FERC to impose conditions on the interim annual licenses of the two hydroelectric projects to bring their operations into compliance with federal environmental laws, including the Endangered Species Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, in order to secure adequate stream flows into the Big Bend area of the Platte River.
green
Nebraska v. Rural Electrification Administration (1994)
Platte River Whooping Crane, 876 F.2d at 112.
These statutory requirements “are strict and go well beyond judicially2imposed standards requiring the exhaustion of administrative remedies prior to the exercise of federal court jurisdiction.” Id. at 112-13.
green
Cherokee County Cogeneration Partners, LLC v. FERC (2022)
But since it did not, FERC was under no obligation to discuss it. 10 Whooping Crane, 876 F.2d at 113.
Trust v. FERC, 876 F.2d 109 , 113 (D.C.
“Neither FERC nor this court has authority to waive these statutory requirements.”
And “[n]either FERC nor this court has authority to waive these statutory • requirements.” Platte River Whooping Crane, 876 F.2d at 113.
green
State of Wisconsin v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Kimberly-Clark Corporation and N.E.W. Hydro, Inc.… (1997)
Id. at 114, 199.
See LaFlamme v. FERC, 945 F.2d 1124 (9th Cir.1991) (FPA jurisdictional provision applied to consideration of violation of NEPA by Commission’s order amending and reinstating license); Platte I, 876 F.2d at 113-16; Platte II, 962 F.2d at 32.
green
Natural Resources Defense Council v. Kempthorne (2009)
FERC abused its discretion by “refusing even to explore the need for protective conditions.” Platte II, 962 F.2d at 30 (citing Platte I, 876 F.2d at 119).
No objection to the order of the Commission shall be considered by the court unless such objection shall have been urged before the Commission in the application for rehearing unless there is reasonable ground for failure so to do. 16 U.S.C. § 825l (1994); see Platte River Whooping Crane Critical Habitat Maintenance Tnst v. FERC, 876 F.2d 109 , 112-13 (D.C.Cir.1989) (“[T]he requirements imposed by the [Federal Power Act] are strict and go well beyond judicially-imposed stand…
See Platte River, 876 F.2d at 112—13.
green
AL Muni Distr Grp v. FERC (2002)
See Platte River Whooping Crane Critical Habitat Maintenance Trust v. FERC, 876 F.2d 109 , 113 n. 1 (D.C.Cir.1989). 2 An intervenor must, however, satisfy the requirements of Article III standing imposed on petitioners See Rio Grande Pipeline Co. v. FERC, 178 F.3d 533, 538-39 (D.C.Cir.1999).
See Platte River Whooping Crane Critical Habitat Maintenance Trust v. FERC, 876 F.2d 109 , 113 n. 1 (D.C.Cir.1989). .
green
Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Kamine/besicorp Allegany L.P.… (1996)
See 16 U.S.C. § 8251 (b); see also Platte River Whooping Crane Critical Habitat Maintenance Trust v. FERC, 876 F.2d 109 , 112 (D.C.Cir.1989)
See Platte River Whooping Crane Critical Habitat Maintenance Trust v. FERC, 876 F.2d 109 , 113 (D.C.Cir.1989) (jurisdiction-ally insignificant that one party raises is *255 sue in petition for rehearing if party bringing request for judicial review did not).