Friends of Back Bay v. United States Army Corps of Engineers

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that the court was “unable to divorce the [agency’s] demonstrably incorrect assumption of an effective [no-wake zone] from [the agency’s] ultimate conclusion that no EIS need be prepared”
• collecting authorities that arguably support a “mitigation/baseline distinction,” id. at 587 (citing Hill v. Boy, 144 F.3d 1446 (11th Cir. 1998) and Nat’l Audubon Soc’y v. Hoffman, 132 F.3d 7 (2d Cir. 1997))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).