Federal

Summary: <p> An environmental group brought an action against the U.S. Army Corps Engineers and BP&nbsp;for violating both the National Environmental Policy Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act.&nbsp; Defendants counter-claimed that the environmental group lacked standing&nbsp; and that the claim was barred by laches.&nbsp; The&nbsp;Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of&nbsp;defendants' motion for summary judgment, reversed&nbsp;summary judgment against the environmental group, and remanded the case for consideration of the environmental group's request for injunctive relief.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>

Summary: <p> A homeless man was mistaken for the driver of a crashed car while sleeping in a public park and was bitten by a police dog.&nbsp; The homeless man brought claims under Section 1983 claiming his&nbsp;Fourth Amendment rights had been violated.&nbsp; The trial court granted summary judgment in favor&nbsp;of the police department and city, but the Court of Appeals remanded the issue of excessive force. <strong> Rehearing en Banc Granted in Part, </strong> <strong> Opinion Vacated in Part by <a href="/cases/causfd437f3d1289.htm"> <em> Szabla v. City of Brooklyn Park, MN </em> , 429 F.3d 1289 (8th Cir., 2006). </a> </strong> </p>

Summary: <p> &nbsp; </p> <p> Several public interest groups brought actions challenging Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) decision to transfer Clean Water Act (CWA) pollution permitting program for Arizona to that State.&nbsp; Under federal law, a state may take over the Clean Water Act pollution permitting program in its state from the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) if it applies to do so and meets the applicable standards.&nbsp; When deciding whether to transfer permitting authority, the Fish and Wildlife Service issued, and the EPA relied on, a Biological Opinion premised on the proposition that the EPA lacked the authority to take into account the impact of that decision on endangered species and their habitat.&nbsp; The plaintiffs in this case challenge the EPA's transfer decision, particularly its reliance on the Biological Opinion's proposition regarding the EPA's limited authority.&nbsp; The court held that&nbsp;the EPA did have the authority to consider jeopardy to listed species in making the transfer decision, and erred in determining otherwise. For that reason among others, the EPA's decision was arbitrary and capricious. Accordingly, the court granted&nbsp;the petition and remanded to the EPA. </p>

Summary: <p> A jury convicted William Kapp for multiple violations of the Endangered Species Act and the Lacey Act connected with the killing of, and trafficking in, endangered tigers and leopards and their meat, hides, and other parts. On appeal, Kapp claims he is entitled to a new trial because the evidence at trial was insufficient to support the jury's verdict and the district court erroneously admitted certain evidence. Kapp also argues that the manner in which he was sentenced violated the Sixth Amendment. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict on all counts, and the district court did not err in its evidentiary ruling.&nbsp; His conviction was, therefore, affirmed, but a limited remand was ordered to determine whether Kapp should be resentenced . </p>

Summary: <span> <span> A livestock owner and drover sued the Wyoming state brand inspector, alleging that inspector violated his state and federal constitutional rights in making warrantless seizure of five head of livestock, and that inspector abused his office in violation of state constitution. </span> Plaintiff Rudy Stanko, proceeding pro se, appealed from the district court's order granting summary judgment to defendant Jim Maher.&nbsp; The appellate court affirmed the entry of summary judgment in favor of Mr. Maher, holding that the warrantless search of cattle did not violate Fourth Amendment and the&nbsp;inspector did not violate the Fourth Amendment by making warrantless seizure of cattle as estrays.&nbsp; Further, the procedure provided under Wyoming brand inspection statutes prior to seizure of cattle deemed to be estrays satisfied due process requirements. </span>

Summary: <p> Some parasail operators brought an action against state officials challenging validity of a state law that banned&nbsp;parasailing in navigable waters. Defendants argued that the court's order should be reconsidered in light of an intervening change in federal law that they say allows for the seasonal parasailing ban.&nbsp; After vacation of summary judgment in favor of operators, 2005 WL 1910497, the state moved for relieve from final judgment.&nbsp; The District Court held that the federal law permitting Hawaii to enforce state laws regulating recreational vessels for purpose of conserving and managing humpback whales did not violate separation of powers doctrine, and&nbsp;federal law did not violate Equal Protection Clause. </p>

Summary: <p> An environmental organization brought an action against United States Bureau of Reclamation, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the&nbsp;Fish and Wildlife Service, alleging that agencies failed to examine critical issues in biological opinions (BiOps) before executing water contracts for delivery of California Water Project water to irrigation and water districts. On a cross motion for summary judgment, the&nbsp;District Court held that the agencies failed to conduct adequate adverse modification analyses, failed to conduct adequate jeopardy analyses, and that the conduct of BOR in relying on the issued BiOps was arbitrary and capricious. </p>

Summary: <p> The Florida Marine Contractors Association applied for permits to build recreational docks on Florida's inland waterways.&nbsp; The permit requests were denied&nbsp;due to danger to the West Indian&nbsp;Manatees that live in the waterways.&nbsp; The Florida Marine Contractors Association&nbsp;challenged the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's&nbsp;permit denials on the basis that the Marine Mammal Protection Act does not apply to residential docks.&nbsp; Summary judgment was granted in favor&nbsp;of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.&nbsp; </p>

Summary: <p> An importer of 144,774 pounds of cooked, frozen blue&nbsp;king crab was charged with violating the Lacey Act for taking the crab in violation of Russian fishing regulations.&nbsp; The crab is subject to forfeiture under the Lacey Act on a strict liability basis, but the importer asserted an "innocent owner" defense.&nbsp; The trial court denied the owner's defense and the Court of Appeals affirmed, reasoning if the crab was illegally taken under Russian law then it is considered contraband for Lacey Act purposes regardless of its status under U.S. law. </p>

Summary: <p> A dog that was constantly in violation of local leash ordinances was held as a stray by the town.&nbsp; The owner of the dog brought a section 1983 action claiming deprivation of the dog's companionship without due process and the trial court held in favor of the town.&nbsp; The Court of Appeals affirmed reasoning that only a post-deprivation hearing was necessary under the statute&nbsp;(which defendant could have received had she filed a petition with the court). </p>