Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Leonard v. Clark

4 Citing cases

  1. Legal Aid Society v. City of New York

    114 F. Supp. 2d 204 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)   Cited 88 times
    Holding that the Legal Aid Society's contractual waiver of its right to challenge the City's action, a right provided for by the National Labor Relations Act, was valid

    However, any such waiver must be made "voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently." Marsh, 105 F.3d at 111; see Lake James Community Volunteer Fire Dep't, Inc. v. Burke County, 149 F.3d 277, 280 (4th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1106, 119 S.Ct. 874, 142 L.Ed.2d 775 (1999); United States v. Local 1804-1, 44 F.3d 1091, 1098 n. 4 (2d Cir. 1995); Leonard v. Clark, 12 F.3d 885, 889-90 (9th Cir. 1993); Erie Telecommunications, 853 F.2d at 1094; Sambo's Restaurants, 663 F.2d at 690. Moreover, the waiver must be established by "clear and compelling" evidence.

  2. Western Watersheds v. Kraayenbrink

    620 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 2010)   Cited 241 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a court "may consider evidence outside the administrative record for the limited purposes of reviewing [an] ESA claim"

    Because we conclude that Public Lands Council has standing, we need not consider whether American Farm Bureau Federation also has standing. See Leonard v. Clark, 12 F.3d 885, 888 (9th Cir. 1993). Intervenors also challenge Plaintiffs' standing to assert their claims.

  3. Natural Resources v. U.S. E.P.A

    526 F.3d 591 (9th Cir. 2008)   Cited 37 times
    Vacating rule held to be unlawful under Chevron analysis

    NRDC, Amigos Bravos, and Powder River have demonstrated, to this Court's satisfaction, association standing under the broad standing requirement applicable here. See Leonard v. Clark, 12 F.3d 885, 888 (9th Cir. 1994) (explaining that once the court determines that one of the plaintiffs has standing, it need not decide the standing of the others). V. STANDARD OF REVIEW

  4. Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Salazar

    791 F. Supp. 2d 687 (D. Ariz. 2011)   Cited 7 times
    Finding "unexplained conclusion" that a permit would have no cumulatively significant environmental effects insufficient to support application of a CE

    Given this conclusion, the Court need not address the standing of other Plaintiffs. “The general rule applicable to federal court suits with multiple plaintiffs is that once the court determines that one of the plaintiffs has standing, it need not decide the standing of the others.” Leonard v. Clark, 12 F.3d 885, 888 (9th Cir.1993); see W. Watersheds Project v. Kraayenbrink, 632 F.3d 472, 484 n. 7 (9th Cir.2011). B. Merits.