Friends of Endangered Species, Inc. v. Jantzen
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
760 F.2d 976 (1985)
- Written by Deanna Curl, JD
Facts
In 1975, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (the Wildlife Service) (defendant) determined that the Mission blue butterfly, an endangered species, would be threatened by a proposed San Bruno Mountain development plan. A group of developers, residents, environmentalists, and governmental officials formed a committee and commissioned a two-year biological study to examine the development’s effects on the butterfly. Based on the biological study’s results, a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) was developed. The HCP designated 81 percent of the mountain’s open space as a wildlife habitat and required mountain residents to pay annual fees to establish and maintain a habitat-conservation program. Local officials subsequently applied for an incidental-take permit from the Wildlife Service pursuant to § 10(a) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The Wildlife Service determined that the HCP and an incidental-take permit would enhance the Mission blue butterfly’s likelihood of survival. After the Wildlife Service granted the incidental-take permit, the Friends of Endangered Species (FES) (plaintiff) sued the Wildlife Service. The district court granted summary judgment for the Wildlife Service, and FES appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Pregerson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
