Patrick Esch v. Clayton K. Yeutter, Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that lawsuit filed prior to the creation of the NAD was neither for “money damages” nor subject to the Tucker Act
• holding that remand to agency was appropriate upon finding of procedural defectiveness
• noting that extra-record evidence may be considered “in cases where agencies are sued for a failure to take action”
• noting that it is only \sometimes\ appropriate to admit extra-record evidence when procedural validity of an agency action is challenged
• recognizing consideration of extra-record evidence to be appropriate “in cases arising under the National Environmental Policy Act”
• noting that it is only “sometimes” appropriate to admit extra-record evidence when procedural validity of an agency action is challenged

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).