Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

Kleissler v. United States Forest Service

United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
157 F.3d 964 (1998)


Facts

The U.S. Forest Service (Service) (defendant) approved two projects in the Allegheny National Forest to allow private companies to harvest trees. Six Pennsylvania and Ohio residents and an Indiana environmental organization (plaintiffs) sued to enjoin the logging and for a declaration that the projects violated federal statutes. A number of third parties sought to intervene: the Ridgway, Bradford, Kane, Johnsonburg, and Smethport school districts; the townships of Cherry Grove, Hamilton, Hamlin, Highland, Wetmore, and Jones; timber companies Payne Forest Products, Inc. (Payne), Spilka Wood Products Co. (Spilka), Ridgway Lumber Co. (Ridgway Lumber), Brookville Wood Products, Inc. (Brookville), and Northeast Hardwoods (Northeast); and Allegheny Hardwood Utilization Group, Inc. (AHUG), a nonprofit whose members were logging concerns. By statute, the school districts and townships were entitled to a share of revenues from logging in the forest. Payne and Spilka had been awarded contracts for one of the projects. Ridgway Lumber was the winning bidder for the other; its contract was on hold for the lawsuit. Brookville and Northeast did not have current contracts with the Service, but most of their income derived from such contracts. Members of AHUG had current contracts with the Service and were expected to bid on future projects. The district court denied intervention to all movants except Payne and Spilka. The other movants appealed.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Weis, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Concurrence (Becker, C.J.)

The concurrence section is for members only and includes a summary of the concurring judge or justice’s opinion.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 202,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 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.