Friends of Columbia Gorge, Inc. v. Columbia River Gorge Commission

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that provisions of management plan “do not appear to be directed toward requiring that commercial, residential, and mineral resource development not cause adverse cumulative effects to cultural resources” (emphasis in original)
• explaining that Oregon courts must apply Chevron deference when inter- preting federal statutes “if the federal interpretative meth- odology so demands”
• noting that the commission could exclude a whole category of features from the definition of “natural resources” and still protect certain components of those features through the management plan
• comparing federal and state standards of deference owed to an agency’s interpretation of its own rule
• discussing the application of Chevron deference to the commission’s interpretations of the Scenic Area Act
• considering whether the Gorge Commission’s revision of its management plan violated the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area Act, 16 U.S.C. § 544-644p

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).