Herr v. United States Forest Services
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
865 F.3d 351 (2017)
- Written by Eric Cervone, LLM
Facts
David and Pamela Herr (plaintiffs) owned a lakefront property on Crooked Lake, which they purchased in 2010. Landowners and visitors had used motorboats on Crooked Lake since the 1940s. The United States government owned most of the land around Crooked Lake, which became part of the federally protected Sylvania Wilderness in 1987. In 1995, The United States Forest Service (defendant) promulgated regulations prohibiting motorboats on the lake. The regulations were subject to valid existing rights. At the time, property owners filed suit and prevailed, obtaining an injunction prohibiting enforcement of the motorboat regulation. In 2013, after the Herrs purchased their property, the Forest Service informed the Herrs that it planned to fully enforce the existing motorboat restrictions. The Herrs brought suit, arguing that the regulation restricted their right to use the lake. The Forest Service maintained that the restriction was reasonable. The trial court upheld the Forest Services’ decision, holding that the Herrs’ rights to use Crooked Lake did not exist at the time the regulations were initially enacted. Thus, according to the trial court, the reservation of valid existing rights did not apply to the Herrs.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Sutton, J.)
Dissent (Donald, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 780,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 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.
