Preserve Endangered Areas of Cobb's History, Inc. v. United States 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.

• holding that “the explicit language of the CWA . . . mandate[s] [5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(2)’s] applicability to the EPA’s oversight authority afforded by [CWA § 404(c)].”
• observing that there is “nothing wrong with an agency compiling and organizing the complete administrative record after litigation has begun from all the files of agency staff involved in the agency action”
• applying an arbitrary and capricious standard of review to Corps’ decision not to prepare an EIS
• applying an arbitrary and capricious standard of review to Corps’s decision not to prepare an EIS
• dismissing CWA citizen suit challenge to EPA inaction under § 404(c) and finding that “the explicit language of the CWA . . . mandate[s] [5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(2)’s] applicability to the EPA’s oversight authority Case No. 3:19-cv-00265-SLG (consol.
• “The role of the court is not to conduct its own investigation and substitute its own judgment for the administrative agency’s decision.” (citation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).