Donna Young v. United States

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the plaintiffs’ “complaint should not have been dismissed” at the 9 12(b)(1) stage because “the Park Service’s knowledge of the hazard . . . should have 10 awaited a determination on the merits”
• explaining that NPS decisions that turn on “historic or natural resource preservation” are “susceptible to policy” determinations
• affirming that a “decision not to warn of a specific, known hazard for which the acting agency is responsible is not the kind of broader social, economic or political policy decision that the discretionary function exception is intended to protect”
• “To identify the particular agency conduct with which Plaintiffs take issue, we look to the allegations of Plaintiffs' complaint.”
• what is “discretionary” depends on “the precise action the government took or failed to take”
• “[B]efore turning to Berkovitz’s two-step inquiry, we must first identify Plaintiffs’ ‘specific allegations of agency wrongdoing.’ To identify the particular agency conduct with which Plaintiffs take issue, we look to the allegations of Plaintiffs’ complaint.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).