Kuehl v. Sellner’s Empirical Analysis
2016
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 16 U.S.C. § 1531 (§ 2 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973) · 16 U.S.C. § 1532 (§ 3 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973) · 16 U.S.C. § 1538 (§ 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973) · 16 U.S.C. § 1540 (§ 11 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973)
Relies on United States v. Booker · Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Friends of the Earth Incorporateds v. Laidlaw Environmental Services Inc · Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission · Sierra Club v. Morton
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Oourt concludes that Plaintiffs’ evidence falls short of supporting a finding that the tigers are “harassed” or “harmed” within the meaning of the [ESA]'due to Tack of environmental enrichment. While the amount of enrichment provided by [the zoo] appears to be nominal, the Court cannot say that the limited enrichment “creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns.” 18 60 C.F.R. § 17.3 . Furthermore, because the lack of. enrichment does not “actually kill[ ] or injure[ ]” the tigers, it does not meet the definition- of “harm” within the meaning of “take” in the Endangered Species Act.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““Harm” is defined as “an act which actually kills or injures wildlife,” while “harass” is defined as “an. intentional or negligent act or omission which creates the likelihood of injury to. wildlife.” 50 G.F.R. § 17.3. Thus, if an act “actually kills or injures wildlife,” it also meets the much lower threshold of “creat[ing] the likelihood of injury to wildlife.” Plaintiffs do not and cannot point to any act—whether hypothetical or real—that, on the one hand, does not “create the likelihood of injury to wildlife,” but, on the other hand, “actually kills or injures wildlife.” ,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Harass in the definition of “take” in the Act means, an intentional or negligent act or omission which creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to ■ suah an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns.... Harm in the definition of “take” in the Act means an act which actually kills or injures wildlife. Such act may include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding or sheltering.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.