BLOCK, SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, Et Al. v. NORTH SIDE LUMBER CO. Et Al.

Related Cases

North Side Lumber Co. v. John R. Block, Secretary of Agriculture
Louisiana-Pacific Corporation v. John R. Block, Secretary of Agriculture
Sierra Pacific Industries, a California Corporation Pine Mountain Lumber Co., a California Corporation George A. Schmidbauer Mary M. Schmidbauer Schmidbauer Lumber, Inc., a California Corporation, Plaintiffs-Cross and Eel River Sawmills, Inc., a California Corporation Erickson Lumber Co., a California Corporation Hi-Ridge Lumber Co., a California Corporation P & M Cedar Products, Inc., a California Corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross v. Richard Lyng, Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture R. Max Peterson, Chief of the United States Forest Service Zane G. Smith, Jr., Regional Forester for Region 5 of the United States Forest Service, Defendants-Appellees-Cross Big Flat Timber Co., a California General Partnership Suntip Co., an Oregon General Partnership Hampton Tree Farms, Inc., an Oregon Corporation Roseburg Lumber Co., an Oregon Corporation Publishers Paper Co., a Delaware Corporation Penn Timber, Inc., an Oregon Corporation Merrill & Ring, Inc., a Washington Corporation Wilsonville Timber Co., Ltd., an Oregon Partnership, Plaintiffs-Cross and Willamette Industries, Inc., an Oregon Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant- Cross and Pedee Lumber Co., an Oregon Corporation Alpine Veneers, Inc., an Oregon Corporation, Plaintiffs-Intervenors v. Richard Lyng, Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture R. Max Peterson, Chief of the United States Forest Service James F. Torrence, Regional Forester for Region 6 of the United States Forest Service, Defendants-Appellees-Cross
North Side Lumber Co., Summit Timber Co., Stevenson Co-Ply, Inc., on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, and Bohemia, Inc., Medford Corporation, Southwest Forest Industries, Inc., Boise Cascade Corporation, Crown Zellerbach Corporation, Georgia-Pacific Corporation, Penn Timber, Inc., Louisiana-Pacific Corporation, Publishers Paper Co., and Willamette Industries, Inc., Plaintiffs-Intervenors-Appellees v. John Block, Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture R. Max Peterson, Chief of the United States Forest Service: Jeff M. Sirmon, Regional Forester for Region Vi of the United States Forest Service, and Lane County, Defendant-Intervenor-Appellant. North Side Lumber Co., Summit Timber Co., Stevenson Co-Ply, Inc., on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, and Bohemia, Inc., Medford Corporation, Southwest Forest Industries, Inc., Boise Cascade Corporation, Crown Zellerbach Corporation, Georgia-Pacific Corporation, Penn Timber, Inc., Louisiana-Pacific Corporation, Publishers Paper Co., and Willamette Industries, Inc., Plaintiffs-Intervenors-Appellants v. John Block, Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture R. Max Peterson, Chief of the United States Forest Service: Jeff M. Sirmon, Regional Forester for Region Vi of the United States Forest Service, and Lane County, Defendant-Intervenor-Appellee
Aleknagik Natives Limited Aleknagik City Council and Aleknagik Village Council v. United States of America Donald P. Hodel, Secretary of the Interior Gail Ozmina, Townsite Trustee, and English Bay Village Council and Port Graham Village Council, Intervening

473 U.S. 1307

106 S. Ct. 4

87 L. Ed. 2d 675

John R. BLOCK, Secretary of Agriculture, et al.
v.
NORTH SIDE LUMBER CO., et al.
No. A-31.

July 24, 1985.

Justice REHNQUIST, Circuit Justice.

1

The United States District Court for the District of Oregon preliminarily enjoined applicant John R. Block, Secretary of Agriculture, from enforcing contracts between him and respondent lumber company. These contracts required the latter to harvest timber in national forests. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 753 F.2d 1482, vacated the injunction holding that the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346 and 1491, impliedly barred the grant of such relief. The Court of Appeals stayed the issuance of this mandate for 30 days so that respondents might petition this Court for certiorari. The Secretary requests that I vacate that stay because of the prospect of continuing deterioration of abandoned timber on the ground. Respondents dispute this factual claim.

2

The District Court held that the "equity" favored respondents, and the Court of Appeals by staying issuance of the mandate even after vacating the injunction, must have agreed with the District Court on this point. The Secretary has furnished me no basis for disturbing their conclusion in this highly factual issue. The application is accordingly denied.