National park GC was managed by agency NPS under a management plan. Agency NPS promulgated a fresh management plan. The proposed plan allowed the use of rafts to be continued in river C, but the number was restricted. The plan received criticisms from environmental groups owing to the fact that too many rafts were still being used. The environmental groups sought to overturn the plan on the ground that the same flouted the wilderness status of park GC. To find: The circumstances under which the federal court can overrule the adjudication of agency NPS.

Question

Want to see the full answer?

Answer 1

Question

Chapter 25, Problem 3BCP

Summary Introduction

Case summary: National park GC was managed by agency NPS under a management plan. Agency NPS promulgated a fresh management plan. The proposed plan allowed the use of rafts to be continued in river C, but the number was restricted. The plan received criticisms from environmental groups owing to the fact that too many rafts were still being used. The environmental groups sought to overturn the plan on the ground that the same flouted the wilderness status of park GC.

To find: The circumstances under which the federal court can overrule the adjudication of agency NPS.

Expert Solution & Answer

Want to see the full answer?

Check out a sample textbook solution

See solution

Students have asked these similar questions

Ma3. Explain in brief. Sally Henderson is an employee of Good Eats Restaurant. Sally's contract with Good Eats Restaurant states: "Sally Henderson shall ensure the bathrooms and dining room area are reasonably clean during operating hours." Sally's good friend James is also employed by Good Eats Restaurant as a parking attendant, a person who parks customers’ cars. On a very busy night at Good Eats Restaurant, without the authorization of Good Eats Restaurant, Sally decided to help her friend James park cars. Sally injures a customer due to Sally's negligent driving while parking cars. The injured customer sues Sally and Good Eats Restaurant. Is it likely that Good Eats Restaurant will be determined to be liable to the injured customer. BRIEFLY EXPLAIN.

J owns a Disability Income policy Before purchasing the policy, I suffered a major back injury that is specifically excluded for coverage under the policy. The clause in J's policy that EXCLUDES back injury claims is found in lhe: A.Guaranteed Insurability rider B. Recurrent Disability clause C. Concurrent Disability clause D. Impairment rider

Skip and Jack are the shareholders of the Blue Fish Event Corporation. Skip and Jack regularly put on classy events on or near the beach, so they have a special insurance policy to protect their assets. Business has been slow as fewer large beach weddings are taking place, so Skip and Jack use a large fan to blow down and damage most of their décor assets, some of which were personal assets of Skip and Jack, to collect the insurance benefits. (a) Assuming their acts are proven, will a court allow Skip and Jack to recover the insurance money? (b) Is this a situation where the corporate veil may be pierced? Why or why not? (c) What would it mean for Skip and Jack if the corporate veil is pierced in this situation?