P & v Enterprises v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that a press release by the agency did not reopen the plaintiff’s challenge to the agency’s rule because “[i]t neither responded to comments nor presented new justifications for retaining the [ ] rule”
• holding claim time-barred under section 2401(a) and affirming dismissal of claim \for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction\ without \reach[ing] the [defendant's] alternative objection that [plaintiff] lacks standing\
• stating that advanced notice of proposed rulemaking “did not purport to represent the Corps’ considered reevaluation and updated judgment on the substance of the 1986 rule”
• demonstrating the flexibility of the Reversionary Property Owners factors by adapting them to the combination of an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and a press release
• noting evident lack of “commitment of agency resources” in finding no reopening
• considering challenge to rulemaking as pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).