Thomas v. Peterson

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that testimony is sufficient to raise substantial questions as to the existence of significant cumulative effects, if it shows that cumulative impacts may be leading to aquatic habitat degradation, undocumented in EAs
• “If anything, the strict substantive provisions of the ESA justify more stringent enforcement of its procedural requirements, because the procedural requirements are designed to ensure compliance with the substantive provisions.”
• Forest Service allowed project proponent to construct a forest road with no other purpose than to aid a logging program before determining whether it could issue logging permits under NEPA
• “It is not the responsibility of the plaintiffs to prove, nor the function of the courts to judge, the effect of a pro- posed action on an endangered species when proper proce- dures have not been followed.”
• discussing the adequacy of piecemeal EIS’s

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).