# Headwaters Inc., an Oregon Nonprofit Corporation Forest Conservation Council v. U.S. Forest Service

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · February 23, 2005 · 399 F.3d 1047

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9497796

## Case

- **Full name:** HEADWATERS INC., an Oregon Nonprofit Corporation; Forest Conservation Council, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. U.S. FOREST SERVICE, Defendant-Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** February 23, 2005
- **Citations:** 399 F.3d 1047; 35 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20051; 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 3136; 2005 WL 418581
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Goodwin
- **Judges:** Goodwin, Hug, Berzon
- **Cited by:** 453 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9497796

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that courts may take judicial notice of dockets in related cases because materials from proceedings in other tribunals are 25 appropriate for judicial notice
- stating that “[a]s a general matter, a court may, 24 sua sponte, dismiss a case on preclusion grounds ‘where the records of that court show that a 25 previous action covering the same subject matter and parties had been dismissed.’”
- holding that courts may 28 take judicial notice of dockets in related cases because materials from proceedings in other tribunals are 1 and guard against improper behavior; and (9
- noting that a court should give notice and an opportunity to respond before 28 dismissing a case on claim preclusion grounds
- noting that a court should give notice and an opportunity to respond before 24 dismissing a case on claim preclusion grounds

## Opinion text

GOODWIN, Circuit Judge,
concurring separately:
I concur in the majority opinion, but write separately to remind the district court on remand that if the factual record developed after remand shows that a party or counsel were, as suspected by the district court, in fact gaming the system to prolong unnecessary litigation, the court has discretionary remedies in the nature of costs and fees to protect the court from imposition.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9497796. Public record. Not legal advice.