Clear Sky Car Wash LLC v. City of Chesapeake, Virginia

How courts have described this case

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

• finding plaintiff “cannot seek relief under the APA because it never asserted an APA claim in its complaint,” notwithstanding reference to APA in statement of jurisdiction
• finding the “statutory directive [under Subchapter II of the URA] is aimed at the agency head, and it omits any language conferring rights or benefits on landowners”
• affirming district court’s holding that no individually enforceable rights exist under Subchapter III of the URA governing “mandatory real property acquisition policies . . . made appliable to state agencies” under 42 U.S.C. §§ 4651 and 4655
• “Because we conclude that 42 U.S.C. §§ 4651 and 4655 do not confer individual rights enforceable by Clear Sky, we also conclude that Clear Sky cannot enforce those; sections under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.”
• “At most, the complaint here suggests only arguably that the {federal agency] should have monitored the City’s conduct more closely and required it to 11 comply with [the URA]. But such ongoing oversight does not amount to final agency action under § 704.”
• “At bottom, we hold that the URA, in imposing policies on the heads of federal and state agencies in §§ 4651 and 4655, creates no individually enforceable rights. Therefore, Clear Sky lacks any basis for a private action to remedy violations of those sections.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).