Cordiano v. Metacon Gun Club, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that “point source” “cannot be interpreted so broadly as to read the . . . requirement out of the statute”
• holding there must be enough “evidence for a jury to find that the alleged contamination presents a reasonable prospect of future harm”
• stating that “point source” “cannot be interpreted so broadly as to read the . . . requirement out of the statute”
• explaining that there is “reasonable prospect of future harm” if “the threat is near-term and involves potentially serious harm”
• explaining that “‘imminency’ requires a showing that a ‘risk of threatened harm is present’”
• noting that “point source” is “to be broadly interpreted” (quotation marks omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).