Federal Case

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that plaintiff orga- nization suffered injury from increased risk of oil spill that would impair its aesthetic or recreational enjoyment of a stretch of Alaskan coastline
• noting that an oil company’s “dock extension” enabled it to handle “even greater increases in [vessel] traffic,” which brought with it an “attendant increased risk of oil spills”
• finding the injury fairly traceable to the defendant, even though \other factors may also cause\ the injury, because \the link between the [challenged action] and [the alleged injury] is not tenuous or abstract\
• determining plaintiffs alleged injury-in-fact where they contended oil spills caused by defendants affected their ability to “study the ecological area, observe wildlife” and use the waters “for recreation”
• stating that injury in fact requires an individual to show “a connection to the area of concern sufficient to make credible the contention that the person’s future life will be less enjoyable . . . if the area in question remains or becomes environmentally degrad- ed”
• requiring the Corps to craft an EIS when it failed to “provide any reason for ignoring the potential increase in tanker traffic” or for “declining to weigh the risk of oil spills while traveling against the reduced risk of a spill while docked”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).