Lilliputian Systems, Inc. v. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

How courts have described this case

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

• remanding to agency for further explanation because brief “opaque statement” was insufficient response .to concern raised by plaintiff
• “An agency’s failure to respond to relevant and significant public comments generally demonstrates that the agency’s decision was not based on a consideration of the relevant factors.”
• “An agency’s failure to respond to relevant and significant public comments generally demonstrates that the agency’s decision was not based on a consideration of the relevant factors.”
• “An agency’s failure to respond to relevant and significant public comments generally ‘demonstrates that the agency’s decision was not based on a consideration of the relevant factors.’”
• “[A]n agency cannot treat similarly situated entities differently unless it ‘support[s] th[e] disparate treatment with a reasoned explanation and substantial evidence in the record.’” (quoting Burlington N. & Santa Fe, 403 F.3d at 777)
• \[A]n agency cannot treat similarly situated entities differently unless it 'support[s] th[e] disparate treatment with a reasoned explanation and substantial evidence in the record.' \ (quoting Burlington N. & Santa Fe , 403 F.3d at 777 )

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).