Hill v. Boy

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that CEQ regulations assist agency to prepare an EA that briefly provides sufficient information and analysis to determine whether to issue an EIS or a FONSI
• remanding where agency’s failure to prepare an EIS was based on incor- rect assumption
• FONSI not supported, Corps improperly assumed that petroleum pipeline would be relocated from under a proposed reservoir, remand for consideration in EIS of adverse effects if pipeline not moved
• “if the agency does find an impact of true significance, preparation of an EIS can be avoided only if the agency finds that changes or safeguards in the project sufficiently reduce the impact to a minimum.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).