City of Waukesha v. Environmental Protection Agency

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the agency acted reasonably in declining to promulgate uniform standards because risk variations in virtually all cases were confined to the acceptable range
• concluding that “in the face of uncertain laboratory and epidemiological data, it was reasonable for EPA to take the risk-averse approach of relying on the animal laboratory data to develop a lower standard”
• concluding that the agency acted reasonably in declining to promulgate uniform stan- dards because risk variations in virtually all cases were confined to the acceptable range
• holding that advocacy group that “provided no affidavit that establishes with specificity and concreteness any particular member . . . that is likely to suffer increased drinking water costs” had failed to establish standing
• noting that the parties represented to the Court “[p]ursuant to Local Rule 16.3(d) and this Court’s General Order for Civil Cases” that “this matter can be most efficiently resolved solely through the filing of dispositive motions”
• stating that -10- courts need not address “asserted but unanalyzed contention[s]”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).