CopyCited 6 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida | 14 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20, 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15153
...MEMORANDUM OPINION GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING PLAINTIFFS' CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ARONOVITZ, District Judge. I.NATURE OF THE ACTION Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202, prohibiting defendants from enforcing 36 C.F.R. § 7.45(e)-(h), as amended at 45 Fed.Reg....
...1361,
31 L.Ed.2d 636 (1972). Since plaintiffs have made no such showing, defendants are entitled to summary judgment on the NEPA claim. E. The Regulations are Not Unconstitutionally Vague Plaintiffs contend that the bag limit aspect of the Regulation, 36 C.F.R. §
7.45(f), is unconstitutionally vague in two respects....
...However, on April 3, 1980, some two and one-half years before plaintiffs filed their amended complaint, the Regulations were amended to correct the inadvertent omission of an exception from the bag limits for fishermen holding valid commercial permits for mullet and pompano netting. 45 Fed.Reg. 2202, April 3, 1980. 36 C.F.R. § 7.45(f)(17)....
...Said exception negates any perceived ambiguity in this area. Plaintiffs second contention is that since the Regulations exclude "bait fish" from the bag limits and do not define that term, the Regulations are unconstitutionally vague. The problem with this contention is that 36 C.F.R. § 7.45(f)(6) enumerates those species of fish the Secretary considers "bait." Therefore, the Regulations are not unconstitutionally vague....
CopyCited 6 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida | 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17331
...The Court having reviewed the entire record, including the memoranda and supplemental affidavits submitted by the parties, Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction is DENIED for the reasons which follow. *1353 FACTUAL BACKGROUND Plaintiffs [1] are seeking to enjoin enforcement of 36 C.F.R. § 7.45(e)-(h), as amended at 45 Fed.Reg....
...t the entries of Little Madeira Bay and Joe Bay, which are among several areas of Florida Bay designated as critical habitat for endangered species, and now closed to all public entry for purposes of establishing crocodile sanctuaries. [3] 36 C.F.R. § 7.45(g)(4), as amended at 45 Fed.Reg....
...Markley holds a commercial hook-and-line fishing permit from the Park. Plaintiff Clyde R. Raffield holds a commercial trap fishing permit from the Park. [2] There are no bag limits on crustacean harvest. So too, net fishermen of mullet and pompano are specifically exempted from the bag limits under 36 C.F.R. § 7.45(f)(17), as amended in 45 Fed.Reg....
...Stated otherwise, the only immediate impact of these restrictions is upon the 63 holders of commercial hook-and-line fishing permits from the Park. [3] Other areas of the Park totalling some 90,000 acres have from time to time been closed to fishing, commercial or otherwise, for related purposes. See, e. g., 36 C.F.R. § 7.45(g)(15)(17) (1979)....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 16 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20
form on February 15, 1980 (the “Rules”). 36 C.F.R. § 7.45(e)-(h) (1985). The Rules imposed bag limits on
