Chambers v. McGee

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that “reviewing court may not ‘fly speck’ and EIS and hold it insufficient on the basis of inconsequential, technical deficiencies.”
• ultimate decision that EIS complies with NEPA and Council on Environmental Quality regulations presents an essentially legal question, which we review de novo
• “This case ... does not require us to determine whether more than mere reasonableness is required, because the government clearly meets a higher standard.”
• ultimate decision that EIS complies with NEPA and Council on Environmental Quality regulations presents an essentially legal question, which we review de novo
• “This case ... does not require us to determine whether more than mere reasonableness is required, because the government clearly meets a higher standard.’’

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).