Idaho Sporting Congress Inc. v. United States Forest Service, and Intermountain Forest Industry Association, Defendant-Intervenors-Appellees

Ninth Circuit

Idaho Sporting Congress Inc. v. United States Forest Service, and Intermountain Forest Industry Association, Defendant-Intervenors-Appellees

79 F.3d 1153, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 17200, 1996 WL 117445

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 15, 1996

Docket95-36161

StatusUnpublished

This text of 79 F.3d 1153 (Idaho Sporting Congress Inc. v. United States Forest Service, and Intermountain Forest Industry Association, Defendant-Intervenors-Appellees) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Idaho Sporting Congress Inc. v. United States Forest Service, and Intermountain Forest Industry Association, Defendant-Intervenors-Appellees, 79 F.3d 1153, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 17200, 1996 WL 117445 (9th Cir. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

79 F.3d 1153

NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
IDAHO SPORTING CONGRESS INC., Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE, Defendant-Appellee,
and
Intermountain Forest Industry Association, et al.,
Defendant-Intervenors-Appellees.

No. 95-36161.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 12, 1996.*
Decided March 15, 1996.

Before: GOODWIN, WIGGINS and O'SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM**

This appeal from the denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction comes to us for review under Ninth Circuit Rule 3-3. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), and we affirm.

Our sole inquiry is whether the district court abused its discretion in denying preliminary injunctive relief. See Gregorio T. v. Wilson, 59 F.3d 1002, 1004-05 (9th Cir.1995). The record before us shows that the court did not rely on an erroneous legal premise or abuse its discretion in concluding that appellant's showing of probable success on the merits was insufficient to warrant preliminary injunctive relief. See id. The court's factual findings are not clearly erroneous. See id. Accordingly, the denial of a preliminary injunction is

AFFIRMED.1

*

The panel finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3

1

Appellant's motions for leave to correct a clerical error in the excerpts of record and for leave to file supplemental excerpts of record are granted. Appellant's request for remand to a different district court judge is denied. All other pending motions are denied as moot

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

79 F.3d 1153

NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
IDAHO SPORTING CONGRESS INC., Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE, Defendant-Appellee,
and
Intermountain Forest Industry Association, et al.,
Defendant-Intervenors-Appellees.

No. 95-36161.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 12, 1996.*
Decided March 15, 1996.

Before: GOODWIN, WIGGINS and O'SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM**

This appeal from the denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction comes to us for review under Ninth Circuit Rule 3-3. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), and we affirm.

Our sole inquiry is whether the district court abused its discretion in denying preliminary injunctive relief. See Gregorio T. v. Wilson, 59 F.3d 1002, 1004-05 (9th Cir.1995). The record before us shows that the court did not rely on an erroneous legal premise or abuse its discretion in concluding that appellant's showing of probable success on the merits was insufficient to warrant preliminary injunctive relief. See id. The court's factual findings are not clearly erroneous. See id. Accordingly, the denial of a preliminary injunction is

AFFIRMED.1

*

The panel finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3

1

Appellant's motions for leave to correct a clerical error in the excerpts of record and for leave to file supplemental excerpts of record are granted. Appellant's request for remand to a different district court judge is denied. All other pending motions are denied as moot

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

79 F.3d 1153, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 17200, 1996 WL 117445, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/idaho-sporting-congress-inc-v-united-states-forest-service-and-ca9-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack