Tulare Cty v. Bush, George

D.C. Circuit

Tulare Cty v. Bush, George

317 F.3d 227, 354 U.S. App. D.C. 325, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 1823, 2003 WL 222753

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedFebruary 4, 2003

Docket01-5376

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 317 F.3d 227 (Tulare Cty v. Bush, George) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Tulare Cty v. Bush, George, 317 F.3d 227, 354 U.S. App. D.C. 325, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 1823, 2003 WL 222753 (D.C. Cir. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

ORDER

Upon consideration of the petition for rehearing en banc, and the absence of a request by any member of the court for a vote, it is

ORDERED that the petition be denied. *

Statement of the Panel

PER CURIAM:

Contrary to Tulare County’s argument, the court examined the complaint against a no more rigorous standard of pleading than that of Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). The court affirmed the district court’s dismissal, for example, of Count III of the complaint because it contained no factual allegations that any part of the Monument lacked scientific or historical value. The allegation that Sequoia groves comprise only six percent of the Monument might well have been sufficient if the President had identified only Sequoia groves for protection, but he did not; the Proclamation covered natural resources present throughout the Monument area’ It was therefore incumbent upon Tulare County to allege that some part of the Monument did not, in fact, contain natural resources that the President sought to protect. That, and nothing more, is what led the court to conclude that the complaint did not identify improperly designated lands “with sufficient particularity.”

*

A separate statement of the panel is attached.

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

PER CURIAM

ORDER

Upon consideration of the petition for rehearing en banc, and the absence of a request by any member of the court for a vote, it is

ORDERED that the petition be denied. *

Statement of the Panel

PER CURIAM:

Contrary to Tulare County’s argument, the court examined the complaint against a no more rigorous standard of pleading than that of Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). The court affirmed the district court’s dismissal, for example, of Count III of the complaint because it contained no factual allegations that any part of the Monument lacked scientific or historical value. The allegation that Sequoia groves comprise only six percent of the Monument might well have been sufficient if the President had identified only Sequoia groves for protection, but he did not; the Proclamation covered natural resources present throughout the Monument area’ It was therefore incumbent upon Tulare County to allege that some part of the Monument did not, in fact, contain natural resources that the President sought to protect. That, and nothing more, is what led the court to conclude that the complaint did not identify improperly designated lands “with sufficient particularity.”

*

A separate statement of the panel is attached.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

317 F.3d 227, 354 U.S. App. D.C. 325, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 1823, 2003 WL 222753, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tulare-cty-v-bush-george-cadc-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack