Town of Cave Creek v. Federal Aviation Administration

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that an agency’s consideration and resolution of the dispute is properly thought of as a second step in the controversy analysis
• concluding that, especially in light of evolving technologies, it Was permissible under NEPA for the FAA to model environmental impacts five years in advance, even though the agency possessed demand projections stretching further into the future
• finding that approval of the project created no binding precedent, as it was developed “to address the particular circumstances and problems encountered in and around [the Project area].”
• rejecting challenge to air traffic rerouting project by observing that “there is nothing unique about Cave Creek or Carefree. Petitioners concede that they are residential areas.”
• finding a shortened quantitative model “was perfectly reasonable” given “the difficulties and uncertainties involved in modeling” over a longer period
• no controversy where the petitioners \pointed to nothing casting serious doubt on [the agency's] preferred model\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).