Center for Biological Diversity v. Robert Lueckel, Ottawa National Forest Supervisor

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that “plaintiffs ... must show that actual, site-specific activities are diminishing or threaten to diminish their members’ enjoyment of the designated river segments”
• reasoning that “plaintiffs ... must show that actual, site-specific activities are diminishing or threaten to diminish their members’ enjoyment of the designated river segments”
• stating that “plaintiffs . . . must show that actual, site- specific activities are diminishing or threaten to diminish their members’ enjoyment of the designated river segments”
• “[T]he particular nature of a case does not—and cannot—eliminate any of the ‘irreducible’ elements of standing . . . .” (quotation omitted)
• “Because the plaintiffs’ standing was challenged in a motion for summary judgment, the plaintiffs must[] . . . ‘set forth specific facts,’ in affidavits or through other evidence, demonstrating that each element of standing is satisfied.” (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) (2005

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).