Notes of Decisions
Glacier Fish Co. v. Penny Pritzker, 832 F.3d 1113 (9th Cir. 2016).
· cites it 20× “14-15224, draft at 8 (citing 16 U.S.C. §§ 1853a, 1802(26)). But because the catcher-processor sector had been operating successfully as a cooperative, Amendment 20 adopted a different approach for the catcher-processor sector.”
Tempest Fisheries v. Locke, 701 F.3d 5 (1st Cir. 2012).
· cites it 11× “Plaintiffs then filed suit in federal court alleging that Amendment 16 conflicts with the Reauthorization Act’s provisions governing “limited access privilege programs,” 16 U.S.C. § 1853a, with the ten “national standards” applicable to all FMPs, id.”
Pac. Coast Fed'n of Fishermen's Associations v. Blank, 693 F.3d 1084 (9th Cir. 2012).
· cites it 9× “3575 , 3586 (2007) (codified at 16 U.S.C. § 1853a). Under such programs, of which quota programs are a subset, fishery participants receive “privileges” (or, in the case of quota programs, “quota shares”) to harvest a certain portion of the total catch allowed for a particular…”
Pac. Choice Seafood Co. v. Wilbur Ross, 976 F.3d 932 (9th Cir. 2020).
· cites it 8× “” 16 U.S.C. § 1853a(c)(5)(B). In light of those objectives, it was reasonable for the Service to conclude that other factors can dictate a lower maximum share than might be required by a singular focus on preventing excessive market power—or, in other words, that the Service may…”
Pac. Dawn LLC v. Penny Pritzker, 831 F.3d 1166 (9th Cir. 2016).
· cites it 2× “16 U.S.C. §§ 1853a, 1802(26). The Pacific Council believed this trawl rationalization program would cause participants in the fishery to spread their fishing throughout the season and avoid the race for fish.”
Relentless Inc. v. US Dep't of Com., 62 F.4th 621 (1st Cir. 2023).
“" 16 U.S.C. § 1853a(e)(2). Second, section 1862(a) allows the North Pacific Council to prepare a "fisheries research plan" for any fishery within its jurisdiction except a salmon fishery.”
Pac. Choice Seafood Co. v. Ross, 309 F. Supp. 3d 787 (N.D. Cal. 2018).
· cites it 8× “In doing so, NMFS "shall consider the basic cultural and social framework of the fishery," and develop both "policies to promote the sustained participation of small owner-operated fishing vessels and fishing communities that depend on the fisheries" and "procedures to address…”
Fishermen's Finest, Inc. v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2021).
· cites it 5× “The statute at 16 U.S.C. § 1853a also authorizes a Regional Fishery Management Council to “establish a policy and criteria for the transferability of limited access privileges (through sale or lease),” as well as to “establish, in coordination with the Secretary, a process for…”
Fairweather Fish, Inc. v. Pritzker, 155 F. Supp. 3d 1136 (W.D. Wash. 2016).
“” 16 U.S.C. §§ 1853a(b)(3), (4). In 1953, Congress enacted the Halibut Act to implement a convention between the United States and Canada.”
Loper Bright Enter., Inc. v. Wilbur L. Ross, Jr. (D.D.C. 2021).
“Plaintiffs specifically refer to: (1) the “limited access privilege program,” which authorizes the Council to collect “fees” to “cover the costs of management, data collection and analysis, and enforcement activities,” 16 U.S.C. § 1853a(e)(2); (2) the monitoring program for…”
— 16 U.S.C. § 1853a(b) — 3 cases
Tempest Fisheries v. Locke, 701 F.3d 5 (1st Cir. 2012).
“Plaintiffs then filed suit in federal court alleging that Amendment 16 conflicts with the Reauthorization Act’s provisions governing “limited access privilege programs,” 16 U.S.C. § 1853a, with the ten “national standards” applicable to all FMPs, id.”
Fishermen's Finest, Inc. v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2021).
“The statute at 16 U.S.C. § 1853a also authorizes a Regional Fishery Management Council to “establish a policy and criteria for the transferability of limited access privileges (through sale or lease),” as well as to “establish, in coordination with the Secretary, a process for…”
Pac. Choice Seafood Co. v. Ross, 309 F. Supp. 3d 787 (N.D. Cal. 2018).
“In doing so, NMFS "shall consider the basic cultural and social framework of the fishery," and develop both "policies to promote the sustained participation of small owner-operated fishing vessels and fishing communities that depend on the fisheries" and "procedures to address…”
— 16 U.S.C. § 1853a(b)(3) — 2 cases
Fairweather Fish, Inc. v. Pritzker, 155 F. Supp. 3d 1136 (W.D. Wash. 2016).
“” 16 U.S.C. §§ 1853a(b)(3), (4). In 1953, Congress enacted the Halibut Act to implement a convention between the United States and Canada.”
Pac. Choice Seafood Co. v. Ross, 309 F. Supp. 3d 787 (N.D. Cal. 2018).
“In doing so, NMFS "shall consider the basic cultural and social framework of the fishery," and develop both "policies to promote the sustained participation of small owner-operated fishing vessels and fishing communities that depend on the fisheries" and "procedures to address…”
— 16 U.S.C. § 1853a(b)(5) — 1 case
Pac. Choice Seafood Co. v. Ross, 309 F. Supp. 3d 787 (N.D. Cal. 2018).
“In doing so, NMFS "shall consider the basic cultural and social framework of the fishery," and develop both "policies to promote the sustained participation of small owner-operated fishing vessels and fishing communities that depend on the fisheries" and "procedures to address…”
— 16 U.S.C. § 1853a(c)(1)(C) — 1 case
Pac. Choice Seafood Co. v. Ross, 309 F. Supp. 3d 787 (N.D. Cal. 2018).
“In doing so, NMFS "shall consider the basic cultural and social framework of the fishery," and develop both "policies to promote the sustained participation of small owner-operated fishing vessels and fishing communities that depend on the fisheries" and "procedures to address…”
— 16 U.S.C. § 1853a(c)(1)(D) — 1 case
Pac. Choice Seafood Co. v. Ross, 309 F. Supp. 3d 787 (N.D. Cal. 2018).
“In doing so, NMFS "shall consider the basic cultural and social framework of the fishery," and develop both "policies to promote the sustained participation of small owner-operated fishing vessels and fishing communities that depend on the fisheries" and "procedures to address…”
— 16 U.S.C. § 1853a(c)(3) — 1 case
Pac. Coast Fed'n of Fishermen's Associations v. Blank, 693 F.3d 1084 (9th Cir. 2012).
“3575 , 3586 (2007) (codified at 16 U.S.C. § 1853a). Under such programs, of which quota programs are a subset, fishery participants receive “privileges” (or, in the case of quota programs, “quota shares”) to harvest a certain portion of the total catch allowed for a particular…”
— 16 U.S.C. § 1853a(c)(3)(A) — 1 case
Pac. Coast Fed'n of Fishermen's Associations v. Blank, 693 F.3d 1084 (9th Cir. 2012).
“3575 , 3586 (2007) (codified at 16 U.S.C. § 1853a). Under such programs, of which quota programs are a subset, fishery participants receive “privileges” (or, in the case of quota programs, “quota shares”) to harvest a certain portion of the total catch allowed for a particular…”
— 16 U.S.C. § 1853a(c)(3)(A)(i) — 1 case
Pac. Coast Fed'n of Fishermen's Associations v. Blank, 693 F.3d 1084 (9th Cir. 2012).
“3575 , 3586 (2007) (codified at 16 U.S.C. § 1853a). Under such programs, of which quota programs are a subset, fishery participants receive “privileges” (or, in the case of quota programs, “quota shares”) to harvest a certain portion of the total catch allowed for a particular…”
— 16 U.S.C. § 1853a(c)(5) — 2 cases
Pac. Dawn LLC v. Penny Pritzker, 831 F.3d 1166 (9th Cir. 2016).
“16 U.S.C. §§ 1853a, 1802(26). The Pacific Council believed this trawl rationalization program would cause participants in the fishery to spread their fishing throughout the season and avoid the race for fish.”
Fishermen's Finest, Inc. v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2021).
“The statute at 16 U.S.C. § 1853a also authorizes a Regional Fishery Management Council to “establish a policy and criteria for the transferability of limited access privileges (through sale or lease),” as well as to “establish, in coordination with the Secretary, a process for…”
— 16 U.S.C. § 1853a(c)(5)(A) — 1 case
Pac. Coast Fed'n of Fishermen's Associations v. Blank, 693 F.3d 1084 (9th Cir. 2012).
“3575 , 3586 (2007) (codified at 16 U.S.C. § 1853a). Under such programs, of which quota programs are a subset, fishery participants receive “privileges” (or, in the case of quota programs, “quota shares”) to harvest a certain portion of the total catch allowed for a particular…”
— 16 U.S.C. § 1853a(c)(5)(B) — 1 case
Pac. Choice Seafood Co. v. Wilbur Ross, 976 F.3d 932 (9th Cir. 2020).
“” 16 U.S.C. § 1853a(c)(5)(B). In light of those objectives, it was reasonable for the Service to conclude that other factors can dictate a lower maximum share than might be required by a singular focus on preventing excessive market power—or, in other words, that the Service may…”
— 16 U.S.C. § 1853a(c)(5)(D) — 2 cases
Pac. Choice Seafood Co. v. Wilbur Ross, 976 F.3d 932 (9th Cir. 2020).
“” 16 U.S.C. § 1853a(c)(5)(B). In light of those objectives, it was reasonable for the Service to conclude that other factors can dictate a lower maximum share than might be required by a singular focus on preventing excessive market power—or, in other words, that the Service may…”
Pac. Choice Seafood Co. v. Ross, 309 F. Supp. 3d 787 (N.D. Cal. 2018).
“In doing so, NMFS "shall consider the basic cultural and social framework of the fishery," and develop both "policies to promote the sustained participation of small owner-operated fishing vessels and fishing communities that depend on the fisheries" and "procedures to address…”
— 16 U.S.C. § 1853a(c)(5)(D)(i) — 1 case
Pac. Choice Seafood Co. v. Wilbur Ross, 976 F.3d 932 (9th Cir. 2020).
“” 16 U.S.C. § 1853a(c)(5)(B). In light of those objectives, it was reasonable for the Service to conclude that other factors can dictate a lower maximum share than might be required by a singular focus on preventing excessive market power—or, in other words, that the Service may…”
— 16 U.S.C. § 1853a(c)(5)(D)(ii) — 1 case
Pac. Choice Seafood Co. v. Wilbur Ross, 976 F.3d 932 (9th Cir. 2020).
“” 16 U.S.C. § 1853a(c)(5)(B). In light of those objectives, it was reasonable for the Service to conclude that other factors can dictate a lower maximum share than might be required by a singular focus on preventing excessive market power—or, in other words, that the Service may…”
— 16 U.S.C. § 1853a(c)(6)(D)(i) — 1 case
Tempest Fisheries v. Locke, 701 F.3d 5 (1st Cir. 2012).
“Plaintiffs then filed suit in federal court alleging that Amendment 16 conflicts with the Reauthorization Act’s provisions governing “limited access privilege programs,” 16 U.S.C. § 1853a, with the ten “national standards” applicable to all FMPs, id.”
— 16 U.S.C. § 1853a(c)(6)(D)(vi) — 1 case
Tempest Fisheries v. Locke, 701 F.3d 5 (1st Cir. 2012).
“Plaintiffs then filed suit in federal court alleging that Amendment 16 conflicts with the Reauthorization Act’s provisions governing “limited access privilege programs,” 16 U.S.C. § 1853a, with the ten “national standards” applicable to all FMPs, id.”
— 16 U.S.C. § 1853a(c)(l)(D) — 1 case
Pac. Coast Fed'n of Fishermen's Associations v. Blank, 693 F.3d 1084 (9th Cir. 2012).
“3575 , 3586 (2007) (codified at 16 U.S.C. § 1853a). Under such programs, of which quota programs are a subset, fishery participants receive “privileges” (or, in the case of quota programs, “quota shares”) to harvest a certain portion of the total catch allowed for a particular…”
— 16 U.S.C. § 1853a(e) — 2 cases
Glacier Fish Co. v. Penny Pritzker, 832 F.3d 1113 (9th Cir. 2016).
“14-15224, draft at 8 (citing 16 U.S.C. §§ 1853a, 1802(26)). But because the catcher-processor sector had been operating successfully as a cooperative, Amendment 20 adopted a different approach for the catcher-processor sector.”
Pac. Coast Fed'n of Fishermen's Associations v. Blank, 693 F.3d 1084 (9th Cir. 2012).
“3575 , 3586 (2007) (codified at 16 U.S.C. § 1853a). Under such programs, of which quota programs are a subset, fishery participants receive “privileges” (or, in the case of quota programs, “quota shares”) to harvest a certain portion of the total catch allowed for a particular…”
— 16 U.S.C. § 1853a(e)(1) — 1 case
Glacier Fish Co. v. Penny Pritzker, 832 F.3d 1113 (9th Cir. 2016).
“14-15224, draft at 8 (citing 16 U.S.C. §§ 1853a, 1802(26)). But because the catcher-processor sector had been operating successfully as a cooperative, Amendment 20 adopted a different approach for the catcher-processor sector.”
— 16 U.S.C. § 1853a(e)(2) — 3 cases
Glacier Fish Co. v. Penny Pritzker, 832 F.3d 1113 (9th Cir. 2016).
“14-15224, draft at 8 (citing 16 U.S.C. §§ 1853a, 1802(26)). But because the catcher-processor sector had been operating successfully as a cooperative, Amendment 20 adopted a different approach for the catcher-processor sector.”
Relentless Inc. v. US Dep't of Com., 62 F.4th 621 (1st Cir. 2023).
“" 16 U.S.C. § 1853a(e)(2). Second, section 1862(a) allows the North Pacific Council to prepare a "fisheries research plan" for any fishery within its jurisdiction except a salmon fishery.”
Loper Bright Enter., Inc. v. Wilbur L. Ross, Jr. (D.D.C. 2021).
“Plaintiffs specifically refer to: (1) the “limited access privilege program,” which authorizes the Council to collect “fees” to “cover the costs of management, data collection and analysis, and enforcement activities,” 16 U.S.C. § 1853a(e)(2); (2) the monitoring program for…”
— 16 U.S.C. § 1853a(e)(l) — 1 case
Glacier Fish Co. v. Penny Pritzker, 832 F.3d 1113 (9th Cir. 2016).
“14-15224, draft at 8 (citing 16 U.S.C. §§ 1853a, 1802(26)). But because the catcher-processor sector had been operating successfully as a cooperative, Amendment 20 adopted a different approach for the catcher-processor sector.”
— 16 U.S.C. § 1853a(f) — 1 case
Glacier Fish Co. v. Penny Pritzker, 832 F.3d 1113 (9th Cir. 2016).
“14-15224, draft at 8 (citing 16 U.S.C. §§ 1853a, 1802(26)). But because the catcher-processor sector had been operating successfully as a cooperative, Amendment 20 adopted a different approach for the catcher-processor sector.”
— 16 U.S.C. § 1853a(f)(1) — 1 case
Glacier Fish Co. v. Penny Pritzker, 832 F.3d 1113 (9th Cir. 2016).
“14-15224, draft at 8 (citing 16 U.S.C. §§ 1853a, 1802(26)). But because the catcher-processor sector had been operating successfully as a cooperative, Amendment 20 adopted a different approach for the catcher-processor sector.”
— 16 U.S.C. § 1853a(f)(l) — 1 case
Glacier Fish Co. v. Penny Pritzker, 832 F.3d 1113 (9th Cir. 2016).
“14-15224, draft at 8 (citing 16 U.S.C. §§ 1853a, 1802(26)). But because the catcher-processor sector had been operating successfully as a cooperative, Amendment 20 adopted a different approach for the catcher-processor sector.”
— 16 U.S.C. § 1853a(h) — 1 case
Tempest Fisheries v. Locke, 701 F.3d 5 (1st Cir. 2012).
“Plaintiffs then filed suit in federal court alleging that Amendment 16 conflicts with the Reauthorization Act’s provisions governing “limited access privilege programs,” 16 U.S.C. § 1853a, with the ten “national standards” applicable to all FMPs, id.”
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.