Sierra Nevada Forest Protection Campaign v. Weingardt

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that “the [USFS] failed to give the public an adequate pre-decisional opportunity for informed comment”
• “Depending on the circumstances, the agency could provide adequate information through public meetings or by a reasonably thorough scoping notice.”
• presenting the parties’ arguments as to the centrality of the failure to provide project specific environmental information in the Wein-gardt decision
• “NEPA is designed to ensure a process and not to produce a particular result”
• “agency decision taken without the required procedure is ‘contrary to law’ ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).