O., ISHANELLYS, MTR. OF

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that reliance on recent population data and new scientific opinions about local water temperature “provide[d] a sufficient ‘reasoned explanation’ for FWS’s change in position” regarding available Arctic Grayling habitat in the Centennial Valley
• remanding “with directions to remand to” the relevant agency “to reassess” inadequately reasoned findings “in light of [the] opinion”
• “Agency decisions deserve the highest deference when the agency is making predictions, within its area of special expertise.” (cleaned up)
• plaintiff showed that agency failed to acknowledge scientific data that directly “contradicted” the agency’s scientific conclusion
• “FWS cannot rely on its briefing in this case to explain why the 2014 Finding relied on the Leary study rather than the DeHaan study. The explanation must be evidenced from the listing decision itself.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).