Fund for Animals v. Babbitt

967 F. Supp. 6, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8967, 1997 WL 355239
CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia
DecidedMay 5, 1997
DocketCivil 94-1021 (PLF), 94-1106 (PLF)
StatusPublished
Cited by48 cases

This text of 967 F. Supp. 6 (Fund for Animals v. Babbitt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Fund for Animals v. Babbitt, 967 F. Supp. 6, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8967, 1997 WL 355239 (D.D.C. 1997).

Opinion

ORDER

PAUL L. FRIEDMAN, District Judge.

On consideration of the parties’ joint motion for approval of their settlement agreement and limited relief under Rule 60(b), and in accordance with this Court’s January 29, 1997, opinion, it is hereby ordered that the parties’ settlement agreement is approved and it is further ordered that the Court’s September 29, 1995, Opinion is hereby amended as follows:

(1) The clause in the last sentence of footnote 7, which reads, “and because under the statute that factor alone may have been sufficient to justify listing the bear, 50 C.F.R. § 424.11(c)” is hereby vacated; and

(2) The words “past” and “historic” in the last sentence of footnote 7 are hereby vacated.

The clerk is directed to submit a copy of the amended opinion with the vacated portions deleted to West’s Reporting Service for publication.

This case is hereby dismissed, except with regard to any claim for attorneys fees’ and costs, and except that any party may move to enforce any aspect of the Court’s September 29, 1995, order as amended, or to enforce the settlement agreement filed with the Court along with the parties’ joint Rule 60(b) motion;

Any claim for attorneys’ fees and costs will be resolved in accordance with ¶8 of the parties’ settlement agreement.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Center for Bio. Diversity v. Deb Haaland
58 F.4th 412 (Ninth Circuit, 2023)
Williams v. Vista
E.D. California, 2022
Kinsley v. Blinken
District of Columbia, 2021
Stewart v. Mabus
District of Columbia, 2016
Chestnut Hill Benevolent Association v. Burwell
142 F. Supp. 3d 91 (District of Columbia, 2015)
Center for Biological Diversity v. Branton
126 F. Supp. 3d 1090 (D. Arizona, 2015)
Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. Export-Import Bank of the United States
85 F. Supp. 3d 387 (District of Columbia, 2015)
Albino v. United States
78 F. Supp. 3d 148 (District of Columbia, 2015)
National Parks Conservation Ass'n v. Jewell
62 F. Supp. 3d 7 (District of Columbia, 2014)
Coe v. McHugh
968 F. Supp. 2d 237 (District of Columbia, 2013)
Alston v. Geithner
950 F. Supp. 2d 140 (District of Columbia, 2013)
Loving v. Internal Revenue Service
917 F. Supp. 2d 67 (District of Columbia, 2013)
Colorado River Cutthroat Trout v. Salazar
898 F. Supp. 2d 191 (District of Columbia, 2012)
Remmie v. Mabus
898 F. Supp. 2d 108 (District of Columbia, 2012)
Center for Food Safety v. Salazar
898 F. Supp. 2d 130 (District of Columbia, 2012)
Ark Initiative v. Tidwell
895 F. Supp. 2d 230 (District of Columbia, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
967 F. Supp. 6, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8967, 1997 WL 355239, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fund-for-animals-v-babbitt-dcd-1997.