Save Our Heritage, Inc. v. Federal Aviation Administration

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that, in order to satisfy the injury in fact - 5 - requirement, \the petitioner [must be] someone who has suffered or is threatened by injury in fact to a cognizable interest\
• finding agency’s alleged failure to consult under NHPA was harmless error where impact on historic site was de minimis
• upholding FAA finding that impacts of newly authorized flights were de minimis under NHPA and NEPA standards
• upholding FAA finding that impacts of newly authorized flights were de minimis under NHPA and NEPA standards
• “Gauzy generalizations and pin-prick criticisms, in the face of specific findings and a plausible result, are not even a start at a serious assault.”
• applying harmless error sua sponte in an administrative review context

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).