Roy v. Volkswagen of America, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that EIS violated NEPA and ANILCA § 810 because it did not consider alternative “which would have resulted in less timber being made available”
• noting that “[b]oth NEPA and ANILCA require the [agency] to consider reasonable alternatives to a proposed action” and evaluating claims brought under each statute together
• evaluating adequacy of EIS’s consideration of alternatives under NEPA and ANILCA together
• noting Case No. 3:19-cv-00056-SLG, Native Village of Nuiqsut, et al. v. Bureau of Land Management, et al. At the outset, Federal Defendants argue that consideration of Plaintiffs’ proposed alternatives is not mandated by ANILCA § 810(a
• failure to consider terminating, modifying, or suspending timber harvest contract contemplating environmentally destructive amount of timber despite subsequent legislation designed to prevent environmental damage to subsistence resources

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).