Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Inc. v. Severstal Sparrows Point, LLC

How courts have described this case

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

• observing that evidence is “integral” to the complaint when its “very existence . . . gives rise to the legal rights asserted”
• finding that the CWA barred a district court from exercising jurisdiction over a citizen suit when the government has commenced and is “diligently prosecuting” an enforcement action
• finding integral a document that by its “very existence, and not the mere information it contains, gives rise to the legal rights asserted”
• dismissing all of Chesapeake Bay Foundation’s CWA claims because they did not list which of the 22 outfalls at which the alleged discharge violations occurred
• describing an integral document as “a document that by its ‘very existence, and not the mere information it contains, gives rise to the legal rights asserted’” (citation omitted)
• explaining a document is “integral” when “its very existence, and not the mere information it contains, gives rise to the legal rights asserted” (internal citation and quotation marks omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).