State v. Hearvey

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 agency need not supplement its safety analysis with a specific assessment of the risk due to terrorist attacks
• holding that agency did not err in declining to reopen record for construction of new rail lines in light of terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001
• holding that an agency violated NEPA when it “completely ignored the effects of increased coal consumption” on air quality, but that the agency was not required to quantify those effects in detail
• holding that an agency violated NEPA when it \completely ignored the effects of increased coal consumption\ on air quality, but that the agency was not required to quantify those effects in detail
• noting that “fly-specking” an EIS for “inconsequential or technical mistakes” is inappropriate

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).