Sean Liguori v. Kimberly Pineda

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that an agency’s statement that it “plan[ned] to assess” an issue commenters had raised fell “well short of what [was] needed to demonstrate the agency grappled with an important aspect of the problem before it or considered another reasonable path forward”
• “Although our review is inherently deferential, it is not satisfied by an agency decision that ignores an important aspect of the problem before it or relies upon a threadbare explanation.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).