Skip to main content
D.C. Circuit· 7/13/2010

Butte County, Cal. v. Hogen

Citations

  • 613 F.3d 190
  • 392 U.S. App. D.C. 25
  • 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 14264
  • 2010 WL 2735666

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • “[A]n agency’s refusal to consider evidence bearing on the issue before it constitutes arbitrary agency action within the meaning of [the 33 APA].”
  • “[A]n agency’s refusal to consider evidence bearing on the issue before it constitutes arbitrary agency action within the meaning of § 706.”
  • “[T]he agency must explain why it decided to act as it did.”
  • “[T]he agency must explain why it decided to act as it did.”
  • “[T]he agency must explain why it decided to act as it did.”
  • “Yet the entirety of Interior’s response to Butte County was this: ‘We are not inclined to revisit this decision now because the Office of the Solicitor reviewed this matter in 2003, and concurred in the NIGC’s determination of March 14, 2003.’ ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Rogers, Griffith, Randolph

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

100 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

21 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Butte County, Cal. v. Hogen

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.