36 C.F.R. § 218.14
Judicial proceedings
(a) The objection process set forth in this subpart fully implements Congress' design for a predecisional administrative review process. These procedures present a full and fair opportunity for concerns to be raised and considered on a project-by-project basis. Individuals and groups must structure their participation so as to alert the local agency officials making particular land management decisions of their positions and contentions.
(b) Any filing for Federal judicial review of a decisions covered by this subpart is premature and inappropriate unless the plaintiff has exhausted the administrative review process set forth in this part (see 7 U.S.C. 6912(e) and 16 U.S.C. 6515(c)).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2015–2024 · leading case: Idaho State Snowmobile Ass'n v. U.S. Forest Serv. (D. Idaho 2021).
Idaho State Snowmobile Ass'n v. U.S. Forest Serv. (D. Idaho 2021). “Both the Forest Service and Intervenors note that ISSA never raised any concerns about the “minimization criteria” during the administrative process, never pleaded such concerns in its Complaint, and only raised this issue for the first time in its Reply brief after being…”
Capital Trail Veh. Ass'n v. U.S. Forest Serv. (D. Mont. 2023). “36 C.F.R. § 218.14 (a). “[I]ndividuals and groups must structure their participation so that it .”
All. for the Wild Rockies v. Higgins (D. Idaho 2024). “, 36 C.F.R. § 218.14 (b) (“Any filing for Federal judicial review of a decision[ ] covered by this subpart is premature and inappropriate unless the plaintiff has exhausted the administrative review process set forth in this part (see 7 U.”
Native Ecosystems Council v. Lannom (D. Mont. 2022). “See 36 C.F.R. § 218.14 (a). That is not accurate, however, as Plaintiffs’ 2019 objections specifically allege a violation of the 13 Roadless Rule, see B4e:0005717, and question how the treatment units will be accessed in the Roadless Areas, B4e:0005730, 5738.”
Lindberg v. United States Forest Serv., 132 F. Supp. 3d 1255 (D. Or. 2015). “As a result, the Forest Service contends that, because it never had notice or a chance to address plaintiffs concern during the administrative process, plaintiff is barred from litigating the issue now.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.