This website requires JavaScript. Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings, or use a different web browser like Google Chrome or Safari.

Options

From our private database of 35,400+ case briefs...

WildEarth Guardians v. National Park Service

United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

703 F.2d 1178 (1997)

Facts

Because of a ban on hunting, the elk population in Rocky Mountain National Park (the park) grew out of control and threatened the plant life. The National Park Service (NPS) (defendant) prepared an environmental-impact statement (EIS) setting out alternatives for a new elk-management plan. NPS evaluated introducing a natural wolf population as one alternative. After considering public comments and expert opinions, NPS determined that introducing a natural wolf population was not feasible and excluded this alternative from the EIS. NPS explained in the EIS that the park was not suitable for wolves because it was smaller than other parks where wolves had been successfully introduced and too close to residential and urban areas. These features would necessitate costly wolf management and help from other agencies, which NPS could not secure. WildEarth Guardians (plaintiff) sought judicial review in federal district court, arguing that NPS lacked a reasonable basis for excluding the natural-wolf-population alternative from the EIS. WildEarth pointed to evidence that this alternative was feasible and provided some benefits to the park’s vegetation and tourism. The district court ruled in favor of NPS, and WildEarth 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 (Tymkovich, 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.

What to do next…

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 617,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.
Unlock this case brief Read our student testimonials
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.
Learn about our approach Read more about Quimbee

Here's why 617,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 35,400 briefs, keyed to 984 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership

Here's why 617,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
35,400 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
Uniform format for every case brief
Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
Top-notch customer support