Supreme Court· 4/1/2009

Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper, Inc.

Citations

556 U.S. 208
129 S. Ct. 1498
173 L. Ed. 2d 369
2009 U.S. LEXIS 2498

How courts have described this case

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

concluding that Congress gave the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) discretion to decide whether it should consider costs in making certain rules
concluding that Congress gave the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) discretion to decide whether it should consider costs in making certain rules
embracing single-step analysis because “if Congress has directly spoken to an issue then any agency interpretation contradicting what Congress has said would be unreasonable”
declining to resolve whether \cost-benefit analysis is precluded under the [BAT] ... test[ ]\
deeming it “eminently reasonable to conclude that [statutory provision’s] silence” on whether an agency can employ cost-benefit analysis “is meant to convey nothing more than a refusal to tie the agency’s hands”
deeming it “eminently reasonable to conclude that [statutory provision’s] silence” on whether an agency can employ cost-benefit analysis “is meant to convey nothing more than a refusal to tie the agen- cy’s hands”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Breyer, Ginsburg, Scalia, Souter, Stevens

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

118 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

16 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.