Holliday v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that regular “recreation and nature apprecia- tion” on land covered by challenged agency action established injury-in-fact
• holding that while lack of interest in the subject of litigation precluded intervention under Rule 24(a), permissive intervention was warranted where movant presented defenses that were “directly responsive” to the plaintiffs claims
• stating that “[p]rotecting the road-less areas of our national forests from further degradation,” the defined objective of the Roadless Rule, “can hardly be termed unreasonably narrow”
• noting that the Corps need not include projects in its cumulative impacts analysis that are highly speculative
• finding that the environmental status quo was not 11 maintained since “the reduction in human intervention that would result from [challenged action] 12 actually does alter the environmental status quo”
• “[H]aving considered additional alternatives in a preliminary manner, the Forest Service could reasonably conclude that only a near total ban on road construction in roadless areas could satisfy [the] policy objectives [of the Roadless Rule].”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).