Citizens for Better Forestry et al v. United States Department of Agriculture et al
| 3:2005cv01144 |
| March 21, 2005 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of California |
| San Francisco Office |
| Phyllis J. Hamilton |
| Environmental Matters |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 4321 Review of Agency Action-Environment |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
127
ORDER by Judge Hamilton granting in part and denying in part 112 Motion for Attorney Fees (pjhlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/11/2008)
|
|
Filing
125
STIPULATION AND ORDER RE: HEARING ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES, COSTS, AND EXPENSES re 124 Stipulation filed by Citizens for Better Forestry. Motion Hearing set for 11/12/2008 09:00 AM. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 10/29/08. (nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/29/2008)
|
|
Filing
119
STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR EXTENSION OF TIME re 117 Stipulation filed by United States Forest Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 9/25/08. (nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/25/2008)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the California Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Citizens for Better Forestry et al v. United States Department of Agriculture et al | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
