Daniels v. Union Pacific Railroad

How courts have described this case

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

• Litigants may not “circumvent[] review of the [agency’s] regulations in this Court . . . by instead indirectly . . . seeking review of the regulations in district court.”
• “[T]he availability of effective judicial review, is the touchstone of the McNary exception.”
• “We review the district court’s legal conclusions de novo ... [and] accept as true the facts that [the plaintiffs] allege[ ] in [their] complaint in reviewing the district court’s disposition of the defendants’ motion to dismiss.” (alterations in original
• “We review the district court’s legal conclusions de novo . . . [and] accept as true the facts that [the plaintiffs] allege[] in [their] complaint in reviewing the district court’s disposition of the defendants’ motion to dismiss.” (alterations in original
• “We review the district court’s legal conclusions de novo . . . [and] accept as true the facts that [the plaintiffs] allege[] in [their] complaint in reviewing the district court’s disposition of the defendants’ motion to dismiss.” (alterations in original
• “We review the district court’s legal conclusions de novo . . . [and] accept as true the facts that [the plaintiffs] allege[] in [their] complaint in reviewing the district court’s disposition of the defendants’ motion to dismiss.” (alterations in original

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).