Moody Hills Farms Limited Partnership v. United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
205 F.3d 554 (1999)
- Written by Jody Stuart, JD
Facts
Coleman Station, a hamlet in New York, was listed on the New York State Register of Historic Places in 1993. The New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation simultaneously nominated Coleman Station for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Coleman Station was then listed on the national register. Subsequently, Moody Hills Farms Limited Partnership (Moody) (plaintiff) succeeded in having the New York State register listing removed based on procedural errors in the listing process. Moody then petitioned the keeper of the National Register of Historic Places (keeper), an officer of the National Park Service (NPS) (defendant), to remove the national-register listing, and the keeper declined. In a letter to Moody, the keeper explained that Coleman Station met the criteria for the national-register listing and that procedural errors in the state listing process did not invalidate the national listing. The keeper considered all relevant factors pertaining to Coleman Station’s eligibility for listing. Moody filed suit against the NPS in federal district court. The district court concluded that because the criteria for the state and national registers were identical, the nullification of the state listing automatically voided the national listing. The NPS appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Walker, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 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.
