Meister v. U.S. Department of Agriculture

Sixth Circuit

Meister v. U.S. Department of Agriculture

629 F.3d 586, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 24505, 2010 WL 5393839

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedNovember 17, 2010

Docket09-1712

StatusPublished

This text of 629 F.3d 586 (Meister v. U.S. Department of Agriculture) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Meister v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 629 F.3d 586, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 24505, 2010 WL 5393839 (6th Cir. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

Our opinion in this case, issued more than 45 days ago, provided that the Forest Service shall have “a reasonable time to adopt a plan that complies with the law.” Op. at 623 F.3d at 380. The opinion also stated that “[njinety days from the date of our mandate seems to us ample time for that compliance.” Id. The Service has now petitioned for rehearing, citing various *587 contingencies that it thinks could delay its action, and asking us to excise the 90-day deadline from our opinion in this case. The Service requests, instead, a deadline-free remand that allows it to comply with the law on whatever timeline the district court “deems appropriatef.]” Pet. at 9.

We deny the petition. Our opinion expressly provided that “[t]he district court may extend [the 90--day] period upon some showing that the court finds compelling[.]” Op. at 623 F.3d at 380. The ultimate deadline for compliance, therefore, already lies in the very capable hands of the district court. We choose to leave the matter there, and reiterate only that “in any event the Service shall comply forthwith.” Id.

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

ORDER

Our opinion in this case, issued more than 45 days ago, provided that the Forest Service shall have “a reasonable time to adopt a plan that complies with the law.” Op. at 623 F.3d at 380. The opinion also stated that “[njinety days from the date of our mandate seems to us ample time for that compliance.” Id. The Service has now petitioned for rehearing, citing various *587 contingencies that it thinks could delay its action, and asking us to excise the 90-day deadline from our opinion in this case. The Service requests, instead, a deadline-free remand that allows it to comply with the law on whatever timeline the district court “deems appropriatef.]” Pet. at 9.

We deny the petition. Our opinion expressly provided that “[t]he district court may extend [the 90--day] period upon some showing that the court finds compelling[.]” Op. at 623 F.3d at 380. The ultimate deadline for compliance, therefore, already lies in the very capable hands of the district court. We choose to leave the matter there, and reiterate only that “in any event the Service shall comply forthwith.” Id.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

629 F.3d 586, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 24505, 2010 WL 5393839, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meister-v-us-department-of-agriculture-ca6-2010.