Our Children's Earth Foundation v. United States 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.

• explaining that such “technology-based” effluent limitations are “determined according to the best available or practicable technology” for reducing pollution at the source
• noting that use of “if appropriate” in the statute signifies a grant of discretion
• noting that use of “if appropriate” in the statute signifies a grant of discretion
• noting that use of “if appropriate” in the statute signifies a grant of discretion
• stating that plaintiffs must “point to a nondiscretionary duty that is readily-ascertainable and not only [] the product of a set of inferences based on the overall statutory scheme” (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted)
• stating that plaintiffs must “point to a nondiscretionary duty that is readily-ascertainable and not 34 VIETNAM VETERANS OF AMERICA V. CIA only [] the product of a set of inferences based on the overall statutory scheme” (alteration in original

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).