Sierra Club v. Flowers

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 District of Columbia lacks a connection with the case because the parties’ offices in the District of Columbia is “overshadowed by the lack of evidence that federal officials in this forum played ‘an active or significant role’ in the decision” at issue
• finding that private interest factors favored transfer where there was no “evidence that federal officials in this forum played ‘an active or significant role’ in the decision to issue the permits” being challenged
• acknowledging that the health of the Florida Everglades “has a national aspect,” but concluding that “there is a strong local interest in having [the] action decided in the Southern District of Florida”
• stating that the plaintiff’s choice of forum received less deference because there was a “lack of evidence that federal officials in [Washington, D.C.] played ‘an active or significant role’ in the decision to issue the permits”
• finding Florida had a local interest in federal action in furtherance of plan “drafted by a state committee and adopted by the Florida legislature”
• granting transfer where no Washington, D.C. officials played an active role in the agency decision at issue

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).