Sierra Club v. Peterson [I]
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
185 F.3d 349 (1999)
- Written by Robert Cane, JD
Facts
In a 1997 action, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas conducted a bench trial to determine whether the United States Forest Service (forest service) (defendant) had complied with the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (forest-management act) and corresponding regulations in a suit brought by the Sierra Club (plaintiff). The district court took substantial scientific evidence during the bench trial. The district court ultimately concluded that the forest service’s even-aged management practices had not adequately protected soil and watershed resources, so the forest service had not complied with the forest-management act. Thus, the district court enjoined timber harvesting until the forest service could demonstrate that its forest-management plans complied with the forest-management act on the ground, or in actual effect. Notably, the district court did not permanently enjoin the use of even-aged management techniques. The district court’s injunction was to last only until the forest service could demonstrate compliance with the forest-management act’s requirement to protect soil and watershed resources. The forest service appealed the issuance of the injunction by the district court, arguing that the district court had abused its discretion in granting an injunction.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Stewart, 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.
