Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Babbitt Vs. Sweet Home Chapter, Communities for Great Ore.

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Apr 17, 1995

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

65 entries 4 linked 61 unlinked
Show
  1. Stone Vs. Ins US Supreme Court · Apr 19, 1995
  2. United States Vs. Bass US Supreme Court · Dec 20, 1971
    Relied / Followed
  3. Geer Vs. Connecticut US Supreme Court · Mar 02, 1896
  4. Consolidated Rail Corporation Vs. Gottshall US Supreme Court · Jun 24, 1994
  5. Babbitt v. Sweet
    Search
  6. For Great Ore. - 515 U.S. 687 (1995) October Term, 1994 Syllabus Babbitt, Secretary of Interior, Et Al. V. Sweet
    Search
  7. if such taking is incidental to, and not for the purpose of, 688 688 BABBITT v. SWEET
    Search
  8. for the State Water Contractors et aI. by Gregory K. Wilkinson, Eric L. Garner, Thomas 690 690 BABBITT v. SWEET
    Search
  9. Fed. Reg. 54748, 54750 (1981). 692 692 Babbitt V. Sweet
    Search
  10. that in 1982, when Congress was aware of a judicial decision that had applied the Secretary's regulation, see Palila v. Hawaii
    Search
  11. on Environment of the Senate Committee on Commerce, 93d Cong., 1st Sess., 27 (1973). 694 694 BABBITT v. SWEET
    Search
  12. Home Chapter, Communities for Great Ore. Ing Chevron U. S. a. Inc. V. Natural
    Search
  13. construction called noscitur a sociis, which holds that a word is known by the company it keeps. See Neal v. Clark
    Search
  14. a)(2)(A), see United States v. Hayashi
    Search
  15. See Palila v. Hawaii
    Search
  16. F.3d 1 , 11 (CADC 1993) (Williams, J., concurring in part), with 17 F. 3d, at 1467-1472. 696 696 BABBITT v. SWEET
    Search
  17. to criminal statutes that impose sanctions without expressly requiring scienter, see, e. g., Staples v. United
    Search
  18. includes several words- 698 698 BABBITT v. SWEET
    Search
  19. treat statutory terms as surplusage supports the reasonableness of the Secretary's interpretation. See, e. g., Mackey v. Lanier
    Search
  20. to extend protection against activities that cause the precise harms Congress enacted the statute to avoid. In TVA v. Hill
    Search
  21. regulation. Respondents, however, present a facial challenge to the regulation. Cf. Anderson v. Edwards
    Search
  22. INS v. National
    Search
  23. TVA v. Hill
    Search
  24. emphasis in original). 700 700 BABBITT v. SWEET
    Search
  25. a)(1)(B) to prohibit indirect as well as deliberate takings. Cf. NLRB v. Bell
    Search
  26. the Court of Appeals' interpretation apply as well to the dissent's novel construction. 702 702 BABBITT v. SWEET
    Search
  27. Russell Motor Car Co. v. United
    Search
  28. of habitat before the seller's activity has harmed any endangered ani- 16 Respondents' reliance on United States v. Hayashi
    Search
  29. in particular cases is unexceptional, see, e. g., Russello v. United
    Search
  30. and acknowledged in TVA v. Hill
    Search
  31. the Secretary's interpretation is reasonable suffice to decide this case. See generally Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural
    Search
  32. U. S. 336 , 347-350 (1971) (quoting McBoyle v. United
    Search
  33. at 27. Respondents make much of the fact that the Commerce Committee removed this phrase 706 706 BABBITT v. SWEET
    Search
  34. See supra, at 702-703. 708 708 BABBITT v. SWEET
    Search
  35. causation, which introduce notions of foreseeability. These limitations, in my view, call into question Palila v. Hawaii
    Search
  36. injures living creatures. To raze the last remaining ground on which the piping plover cur- 710 710 BABBITT v. SWEET
    Search
  37. of proximate cause routinely apply in the negligence and strict liability contexts. 712 712 BABBITT v. SWEET
    Search
  38. a)(1) only if their habitat-modifying actions proximately cause death or injury to protected animals. Cf. Benefiel v. Exxon
    Search
  39. New York v. Shore
    Search
  40. Jerome B. Grubart, Inc. v. Great
    Search
  41. alternative characterizations in terms of foreseeability, see Milwaukee & St. Paul R. Co. v. Kellogg
    Search
  42. and duty, see Palsgraf v. Long
    Search
  43. Island R. Co., 248 N. Y. 339, 162 N. E. 99 (1928). Consolidated Rail Corporation v. Gottshall
    Search
  44. to my interpretation, Palila II--under which the Court of Appeals held that a state 714 714 BABBITT v. SWEET
    Search
  45. In my view petitioners must lose-the regulation must falleven under the test of Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural
    Search
  46. or even foreseeable, and no matter how long the chain of causality between modification and injury. See, e. g., Palila v. Hawaii
    Search
  47. destroy full-grown mamane trees, they do destroy mamane seedlings, which will not grow to 716 716 BABBITT v. SWEET
    Search
  48. first or the third of these features. I respond to their arguments in Part III, infra. 718 718 BABBITT v. SWEET
    Search
  49. Beecham v. United
    Search
  50. Syllabus Babbitt, Secretary of Interior, Et Al. V. Sweet
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial