injunction denied

OLENEC v. National Marine Fisheries Service

Full Case Name
Halcyn OLENEC; John B. Jones III; Julie Jones; Thomas Stark; Teri Stark; Larry White; Bandon Woodlands Community Association, and Oregon Coast Alliance, Plaintiffs, v. NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE, an agency of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; Barry A. Thom, in his official capacity as Acting Regional Administrator; United States Army Corps of Engineers, an agency of the Department of the Army; and Robert L. Van Antwerp Jr., Lt. General in his official capacity as the Chief of Engineers and Commanding General for the Corps; Defendants
Description

Organizations and individuals who list, visit, and recreate near the proposed mines challenged agency decisions allowing Oregon Resources Corp. (ORC) to operate chromite mines. Court found that the plaintiffs did not show the injunction would be in the public interest or that ORC did not adequately address environmental concerns.

Cite
765 F. Supp. 2d 1277
Date
01-28-2011
Court
United States District Court for the District of Oregon
Jurisdiction
United States
URL
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2477541/olenec-v-national-marine-fisherie…
Plaintiffs
individual
Company
Defendants
Other Governmental Entity
Incident Location
Coos County, OR
Disputed Act

Under the APA, organizations and individuals who list, visit, and recreate near proposed mines challenged agency decisions allowing Oregon Resources Corp. to operate chromite mines; stated extraction of chromium will impact wetlands and wildlife. Plaintiffs alleged irreparable harm, including light pollution which would impact human habitation.

Holding
The Court found that the organizations and individuals did not show that their Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction would be in the public interest or that ORC did not adequately address environmental concerns.
Disposition
injunction denied
general illumination

Scott v. City of Buffalo

Full Case Name
Keith H. Scott, Sr., et al., Petitioners, v. City of Buffalo et al., Respondents
Description

The plaintiffs filed suit against the City of Buffalo for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the City of Buffalo from taking any actions toward approval or action upon the agreement about the land sale to the Seneca Nation of Indians for the building of a casino, alleging that an appropriate environmental review was not undertaken, and citing concerns about increased traffic, air pollution, light pollution, and noise from the construction of the casino. The Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction.

Cite
16 Misc. 3d 259
Date
11-09-2006
Court
New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
New York
URL
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6308320/scott-v-city-of-buffalo/
Plaintiffs
individual
Defendants
city
Incident Location
Buffalo, NY
Disputed Act

Plaintiffs either live or work within 2 blocks of land purchased by the Seneca Nation of Indians (the Nation) from the City of Buffalo for the development of a gaming casino. The plaintiffs filed suit against the City of Buffalo for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the City from taking any actions toward approval or action upon the agreement about the land sale to the Nation for the building of a casino, alleging that an appropriate environmental review was not undertaken, and cited concerns about increased traffic, air pollution, light pollution, and noise from the construction of the casino.

Holding
The Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction against the City of Buffalo. Specifically, the Court found that the the plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable injury or that the balance of equities favored them.
Disposition
injunction denied
general illumination
Subscribe to injunction denied