Hubbard v. Associated Press

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that EPA’s “selection of the cut-off point [is] essentially unbounded,” given the sense in which we have permitted the agency to consider cost-effectiveness
• noting, in the context of rejecting a challenge to various EPA cost assumptions where the challenger had not explained why the assumptions were arbitrary and capricious, that courts “generally defer[] to the agency’s expertise” on “technical details”
• “Of course we are able to assume the existence of EPA’s allowance trading program only because no one has challenged its adoption.”
• “Of course we are able to assume the existence of EPA’s allowance trading program only because no one has challenged its adoption.”
• the term “significant” “does not in itself convey a thought that significance should be measured in only one dimension,” and in “some contexts, ‘significant’ begs a consideration of costs”
• extending deadline under the NOx SIP Call Rule to 2004

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).