EZRA WASHINGTON v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

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 redressability requirement was satisfied when the court’s decision would reduce “to some extent” plaintiffs’ risk of additional injury
• recognizing that “[a]gencies, like legislatures, do not generally resolve massive problems in one fell regulatory swoop”
• holding that \[o]nly one of the petitioners needs to have standing to permit us to consider the petition for review\
• holding that “[o]nly one of the petitioners needs to have standing to permit us to consider the petition for review”
• holding that Congress did not intend to allow changes in scientific developments to render the Clean Air Act obsolete
• holding that an agency “must ground its reasons for action or inaction in the statute”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).