Court Cases

Click on case name:

Catron County v. U.S.F.W.S.
Case involves a decision that the federal government must go through the NEPA process in enforcing the Endangered Species Act and provides that the local government has standing to sue the federal agency or agencies for relief for violations of NEPA.
Washington Wilderness Coalition and Philip Brick v. Walla Walla County and Columbia County, March 8, 1995
Case involves the lack of standing in court for the Washington Wilderness Coalition in a lawsuit. The Washington Wilderness Coalition was unable to show harm to itself or its constituents.
Uintah County v. Norton
Case involves the BLM's refusal to follow its own plan in managing a wild horse herd and in coordinating the plan with that of the local government. The BLM had to obey its own plan as it related to that of Uintah County.
Arizona Cattleman's Association v. USFWS, BLM and Southwest Biodiversity Project (This is in Adobe Reader format. If you do not have this free reader click here)
Case involves an attempt to restrict property rights on private property when there is no evidence an endangered species is even living or using the habitat. The Court found in favor of the plaintiff's. The USFWS cannot impose species recovery plans unless their is solid evidence the species is found in the habitat. (see pages 27-28)
Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizen Council
Case involves the decision by the US Forest Service that NEPA requires it to select an option different from current use or no change, regardless of the new option's adverse impact on the local community. The Court found that "NEPA itself does not impose duties mandating particular results, but simply prescribes the necessary process for preventing uninformed-rather than unwise-agency action…If the adverse environmental effects of the proposed action are adequately identified and evaluated, the agency is not constrained by NEPA from deciding that other values outweigh the environmental costs."
California Coastal Commission v. Granite Rock Co., 480 U.S. 572 (1987)
Supreme Court determined state land use planning is allowed on federal lands as long as such land use planning does not include zoning. Federal agencies cannot claim "Constitutional Supremacy" if the agency can comply with both federal law and the local land use plan.
Wisconsin Public U.S. Intervenor v. Mortier, 501 U.S. 597 (1991)
When considering preemption, the U.S. Supreme Court starts with the assumption that the State's historic powers are not superseded by federal law unless that is the clear and manifest purpose of Congress.
First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los Angeles, California
In this case the County of Los Angeles invoked a development moratorium that temporarily prevented a church camp from rebuilding camp buildings destroyed by a flood. The church argued that the government must pay just compensation. The Supreme Court found for the church.
City of Monterey v Del Monte Dunes at Monterey, LTD
A development, Del Monte Dunes, was repeatedly turned down by the City of Monterey even after the developer complied with the ever-changing requests made by the city. The Supreme Court found against the City of Monterey because it stripped the landowner of all reasonable economic expectations while allowing no just compensation ore even an adequate forum for seeking it.
Nollan vs. California Coastal Commission
The California Coastal Commission required the Nollans to grant an easement to the public on their own beach as a requirement for granting them a permit to replace their small bungalow with a newer structure. The Supreme Court called it extortion and found in favor of the Nollans. Specifically, the Court found that remedial requirements imposed must serve the same governmental purpose as the development ban.

Under Construction