Karst Environmental Education & Protection, Inc. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that there was no final agency action where HUD had yet to consider and approve a grant application for disbursal of appropriated funds because “the federal money is but an expectancy that has not yet materialized”
• noting that “a court cannot merely give parties a broad order to obey the law” . . . and commenting that “[e]njoining the defendants from violating the [relevant statute], . . ., would merely require them to obey the law.”
• “Because at this point in time, the federal money is but an expectancy that has not yet materialized, the court determines that HUD’s action on the grant application for appropriated funds does not constitute a judicially reviewable final agency action.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).