Pacific Lumber Co. v. Marbled Murrelet

How later courts describe this case

• held a reasonably certain threat of imminent harm to a protected species is sufficient for issuance of an injunction under the ESA
• species protected under ESA has standing to sue "in its own right” to enforce the provisions of the ESA
• habitat modification which significantly impairs the breeding and sheltering of a protected species amounts to “harm” under the ESA, and “harm,” therefore, includes the threat of future harm
• “Weight is different from admissibility. An expert’s report might be admissible but so lacking in weight as not to block the granting of summary judgment for the other side.”
• to prevail in an injunctive proceeding under the ESA, a plaintiff must show that violation of ESA is at least likely in future, or that a definite threat of future harm to protected species exists