State v. Massie

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that Plaintiffs’ claim that Federal Defendants were failing to provide drainage required by San Luis Act was redressable under section 706(1) as action “unreasonably delayed”
• noting that Congressional action subsequent to enactment of San Luis Act has conferred substantial discretion on the Department of Interior
• affirming the trial court’s holding that the government had a statutory duty under the San Luis Act to provide drainage to Westlands, but reversing the trial court’s holding that the government’s drainage obligation was required to be satisfied by the construction of an interceptor drain
• “The term ‘shall’ is usually regarded as making a provision mandatory, and the rules of statutory construction presume that the term is used in its ordinary sense unless there is clear evidence to the contrary.”
• “Although the district court can compel the Department of Interior to provide drainage service as mandated by the San Luis Act, the district court cannot eliminate agency discretion as to how it satisfies the drainage requirement.”
• “Although the district court can compel the Department of Interior to provide drainage service as mandated by the San Luis Act, the district court cannot eliminate agency discretion as to how it satisfies the drainage requirement.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).