John David Waguespack v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• observing “the arbitrary and capricious standard is particularly deferential in matters implicating predictive judgments” (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Stand Up for California!, 879 F.3d at 1188)
• “During the notice and comment period, Colusa did not tell the BIA to consider the alternatives it now proposes. Having failed to do so, Colusa has waived any argument that the failure to consider those alternatives represented a violation of NEPA.”
• “We have ‘consistently held that purely economic interests do not fall within NEPA’s zone of interests.’” (quoting Ashley Creek Phosphate, 420 F.3d at 940)
• no abuse of discretion in declining to admit a 17 declaration presented by the plaintiff to support the contention that a proposed casino would have 18 a devastating economic impact

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).