Matthew T Mckinney v. State of Indiana

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that an FAA letter was not “final” because it “only affects [petitioners’] rights adversely on the contingency of future administrative action”
• holding that an FAA letter was not “final” because it was “contingent,” in part, “on congressional appropriation” and a municipality’s filing of a grant application
• holding that an FAA letter was not final because its adverse effect on the petitioners’ rights was contingent on future administrative action
• holding that an FAA letter was not final because its adverse effect on the petitioners’ rights was contingent on future administrative action
• holding that petitioners’ injury was not redressable by a decision vacating $337 million in agency funding for a project because the project could continue on the basis of other sources of financing
• stating that the FAA \appears to have acted with great care in conducting its analyses for the EIS and ROD\ in this case

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).