Case Citator › Federal Lands Legal Consortium v. United States

Federal Lands Legal Consortium v. United States

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Abrogated
Court
Tenth Circuit
Citation
195 F.3d 1190
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
30 of 30
Citing cases (total)
30
Treatment dates
2016
Abrogated
A reviewed court treats this case as abrogated by later authority. Federal Lands Legal Consortium v. United States was abrogated in part. The Tenth Circuit later held that its rule requiring a court to decide whether a protected property interest exists before rejecting a due process claim is no longer binding; that treatment is listed below.
More on how this was screened

The decision did not disturb its holding about grazing permits. All 30 flagged citations have been read. Highland Development, Inc. v. Duchesne County applied Federal Lands' property interest standard; its nearby abrogation note concerned another case.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

30 later cases cite Federal Lands Legal Consortium v. United States; 30 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Federal Lands Legal Consortium v. United States?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Abrogated

  • The Tenth Circuit held that Federal Lands' requirement to decide whether a claimant has a protected property interest before resolving a due-process claim no longer binds courts after intervening Supreme Court authority.

    Onyx Properties LLC v. Board of County Commissioners · Tenth Circuit · filed

    Federal Lands Legal Consortium v. United States, 195 F.3d 1190, 1195 (10th Cir. 1999), suggested that American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40, 59 (1999), requires us always to address the existence of a protected property interest when considering a due-process claim. “We are bound by the precedent of prior panels absent en banc reconsideration or a superseding contrary decision by the Supreme Court.” United States v. Killion, 7 F.3d 927, 930 (10th Cir. 1993). But there is now contrary Supreme Court authority. See City of Cuyahoga Falls v. Buckeye Cmty. Hope Found., 538 U.S. 188, 198 (2003) (declining to decide whether respondents possessed a property interest in building permits because their substantive-due-process claim would fail anyway). Therefore, neither Federal Lands nor Nichols v. Board of Cty. Comm’rs, 506 F.3d 962, 969 n.2 (10th Cir. 2007), which relied on Federal Lands without discussing City of Cuyahoga Falls, remains binding on this point.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Federal Lands Legal Consortium v. United States and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace