SIERRA CLUB, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
George E. MARTIN, et al., Defendants.
and
Bert Thomas, et al., Defendant Intervenors.
United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
January 30, 1998.
January 30, 1998.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Donald D.J. Stack, Stack & Associates, Atlanta, GA, Eric Eugene Huber, Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund, Inc., New Orleans, LA, for Sierra Club, Wilderness Society, Georgia Forestwatch, Inc., the Armuchee Alliance, Raburn County Coalition to Save the Forest, Inc., Friends of Georgia, Inc., plaintiffs.
James Randolph Schulz, Office of United States Attorney, Atlanta, GA, Lois J. Schiffer, phv/USAty, U.S. Department of Justice, Environment & Natural Resources Division, Washington, DC, Kelly E. Mofield, phv-DOJ, U.S. Department of Justice, Environment & Natural Resources Division, Franklin Station, Wildlife & Marine Resources Section, Stephen R. Herm, phv, U.S. Department of Justice, Environment & Natural Resources Division, Lisa A. Holden, phv-DOJ, U.S. Department of Justice, Environmental/Natural Resources Division, Washington, DC, for George G. Martin, in his official capacity as Forest Supervisor of the Chatahoochee and Oconee National Forests, Robert C. Joslin, Regional Forester of the United States Forest Service for Region Eight, United States Forest Service, Defendants.
Alexander Stephens Clay, IV, Ashley B. Watson, Kilpatrick Stockton, Atlanta, GA, Thomas R. Lundquist, phv, John A. Macleod, phv, Joseph M. Klise, phv, Crowell & Moring, Washington, DC, for Bert Thomas, Cook Brothers Lumber Co., Inc., Parton Lumber Co., Inc., and Thrift Brothers Lumber Co., Inc., Defendant-Intervenors.
United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division.
ORDER
THRASH, District Judge.
This action challenges the approval by the United States Forest Service of seven timber cutting projects in the Chattahoochee National Forest in North Georgia. It is before the Court on the Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 54] of the Plaintiffs, and Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment [Doc. Nos. 62 and 63] by the Defendants and Intervenors. For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies the Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting Sign on now to see your case. Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
Updated daily.
Uncompromising quality.
Complete, Accurate, Current.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full
text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the
full text of the citing case.
