Question

In: Biology

In the court case, Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities For a Better Oregon, Sweet...

In the court case, Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities For a Better Oregon, Sweet Home Chapter of Communities For a Better Oregon alleged that, Babbitt was unable to develop and log a specific piece of land due to the presence of the northern spotted owls and red-cockaded woodpeckers that inhabited that area. Under what statute would the Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Better Oregon use in this case against Babbitt?

Solutions

Expert Solution

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) makes it unlawful for any person to take endangered or threatened species, and defines take to mean, among other things, harass, harm, pursue, wound, or kill. In 1975, the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) issued a regulation defining harm to include “significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife.

The respondents in Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities For a Better Oregon alleged that, under the Secretary’s definition, they were unable to develop and log on their land due to the presence of northern spotted owls and red-cockaded woodpeckers listed as threatened under the ESA. The respondents challenged the regulation on its face, alleging that the definition defied Congressional intent.

gladiator answered 2 years ago
Next > < Previous

Related Solutions

According to the case of Cobbs v. Grant, the court said there was not enough evidence...
According to the case of Cobbs v. Grant, the court said there was not enough evidence to support a verdict of negligence, yet the original gastrectomy led to multiple hospital stays and two follow-up surgeries. These complications were known risks that can occur even if the surgeon performs the operation flawlessly. If you were the patient and knew about these risks, would you have decide to consent to the first surgery? What factors would you consider?
In the court case Harris v. McRae what did district court Judge Dooling mean when he...
In the court case Harris v. McRae what did district court Judge Dooling mean when he said that a woman’s decision to terminate her pregnancy because medically necessary to her health is an exercise of “the most fundamental of rights, nearly allied to her right to be.”? Does the denial of that right for poor women by the U.S. Supreme Court deny those women their “right to be”?
On-line research Sollars v. City of Milwaukee, Oregon appellate case. What are the exact words in...
On-line research Sollars v. City of Milwaukee, Oregon appellate case. What are the exact words in the real estate contract that led to the court's decision that the BUYER (not the heirs of the seller) obtained title to money found in the home after it was purchased? What rule of contract construction was used to make this legal analysis?
Business law, please help for this court case below. Gaskell v. Univ. of Kentucky
Business law, please help for this court case below. Gaskell v. Univ. of Kentucky
In University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar case, the Supreme Court held that the...
In University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar case, the Supreme Court held that the "___________" standard would apply in retaliation cases.
Based on Court Case United States v. Bestfoods 113F.3d 572 (1998) United States v. Bestfoods 113...
Based on Court Case United States v. Bestfoods 113F.3d 572 (1998) United States v. Bestfoods 113 F.3d 572 (1998) SOUTER, JUSTICE The United States brought this action under §107(a)(2) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) against, among others, respondent CPC International, Inc., the parent corporation of the defunct Ott Chemical Co. (Ott II), for the costs of cleaning up industrial waste generated by Ott II’s chemical plant. Section 107(a)(2) authorizes suits against, among others,...
Castaneda v. Partida is an important court case in which statistical methods were used as part...
Castaneda v. Partida is an important court case in which statistical methods were used as part of a legal argument. When reviewing this case, the Supreme Court used the phrase "two or three standard deviations" as a criterion for statistical significance. This Supreme Court review has served as the basis for many subsequent applications of statistical methods in legal settings. (The two or three standard deviations referred to by the Court are values of the z statistic and correspond to...
summarize McCulloch v. Maryland (1819). Why was this an imporatant supreme court case and how did...
summarize McCulloch v. Maryland (1819). Why was this an imporatant supreme court case and how did it relate to federalism?
Castaneda v. Partida is an important court case in which statistical methods were used as part...
Castaneda v. Partida is an important court case in which statistical methods were used as part of a legal argument. When reviewing this case, the Supreme Court used the phrase "two or three standard deviations" as a criterion for statistical significance. This Supreme Court review has served as the basis for many subsequent applications of statistical methods in legal settings. (The two or three standard deviations referred to by the Court are values of the z statistic and correspond to...
Castaneda v. Partida is an important court case in which statistical methods were used as part...
Castaneda v. Partida is an important court case in which statistical methods were used as part of a legal argument. When reviewing this case, the Supreme Court used the phrase "two or three standard deviations" as a criterion for statistical significance. This Supreme Court review has served as the basis for many subsequent applications of statistical methods in legal settings. (The two or three standard deviations referred to by the Court are values of the z statistic and correspond to...
ADVERTISEMENT
Subjects
ADVERTISEMENT
Latest Questions
ADVERTISEMENT