Drago v. GARMENT

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that 9 The four proposed sites (for Nodes 4 8, 10, and 28) that the proposed intervenors oppose are distinct from the proposed sites (for Nodes 5, 6, 9, 15, and 17) located on private roads owned by the KOA. (See Intervention Br. at 4 n.1; Nejat Decl. ¶ 7.
• holding plaintiff lacked standing under TCA to enjoin city from erecting wireless facilities because TCA does not allow party to “bring an action in federal court for the adverse effects flowing from the granting of a request to construct personal wireless service facilities”
• “There is no language in the [TCA] to allow someone to bring an action in federal court for adverse effects flowing from the granting of a request to construct personal wireless service facilities.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).