Davis v. Mineta

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a contract requiring a consultant to recommend that a project had no significant environmental impact before actually preparing an EA violated NEPA
• holding that a statement of objectives would be unreasonably narrow if it would permit only one particular crossing across a river in order to improve traffic flow
• holding the EA outcome was prejudged where the consultant drafting the EA was contractually obligated to prepare a FONSI
• requiring plaintiffs in the context of a preliminary-injunction action to show that \their specific environmental interests\ were injured by violation of the Act
• granting relief on the ground that the agency had prejudged the decision at issue and conducted \an evidently pro forma public opportunity to comment\
• overturning the finding of no significant impact because “the [EA] makes no firm commitment to any noise mitigation measures”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).