Chattooga Conservancy, et al v. AGRI, et al
| Chattooga Conservancy, MountainTrue and Debbie Kruzen |
| United States Department of Agriculture, Thomas J. Vilsack, Brooke Rollins, United States Forest Service, Randy Moore, Kenderick Arney, Antoine Dixon, Robert Sitzlar, James Browning and Dawn Laybolt |
| 26-5165 |
| May 14, 2026 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit |
| Other Statutes APA/Review Agency |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 14, 2026. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| US CIVIL CASE docketed. [26-5165] [Entered: 05/14/2026 02:42 PM] |
| NOTICE OF APPEAL [2173422] seeking review of a decision by the U.S. District Court in 1:24-cv-00518-TJK filed by Chattooga Conservancy, Debbie Kruzen and Mountaintrue. Appeal assigned USCA Case Number: 26-5165. [26-5165] [Entered: 05/14/2026 02:43 PM] |
| CLERK'S ORDER [2173424] filed directing party to file initial submissions: APPELLANT docketing statement due 06/15/2026. APPELLANT certificate as to parties due 06/15/2026. APPELLANT statement of issues due 06/15/2026. APPELLANT underlying decision due 06/15/2026. APPELLANT deferred appendix statement due 06/15/2026. APPELLANT entry of appearance due 06/15/2026. APPELLANT transcript status report due 06/15/2026. APPELLANT procedural motions due 06/15/2026. APPELLANT dispositive motions due 06/29/2026; directing party to file initial submissions: APPELLEE certificate as to parties due 06/15/2026. APPELLEE entry of appearance due 06/15/2026. APPELLEE procedural motions due 06/15/2026. APPELLEE dispositive motions due 06/29/2026 [26-5165] [Entered: 05/14/2026 02:44 PM] |
Access additional case information on PACER
Access the Case Summary and Docket Report to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
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.
