Robertson v. Methow Valley
Citizens Council case brief
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
490 U.S. 332 (1989)
CASE SYNOPSIS: Petitioner
forest service filed an application for a writ of certiorari to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to challenge its
finding that 42 U.S.C.S. § 4332, the National Environmental Policy
Act, requirements were not met when petitioner granted a permit for a
ski resort.
FACTS: Respondent citizens council brought an action to challenge the decision of petitioner forest service in granting a permit for a ski development, claiming that the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements, under 42 U.S.C.S. § 4332, were not met. The district court held that an early winter study met § 4332 requirements. On appeal, the appellate court reversed. The court granted certiorari and reversed the appellate court's decision because it misapplied NEPA and gave inadequate deference to petitioner. The court held that that NEPA did not require a fully developed plan detailing what steps would be taken to mitigate adverse environmental impacts and did not require a "worst case analysis." In addition, the court held that petitioner adopted a permissible interpretation of its own regulations.
CONCLUSION: The court reversed the appellate court's finding that the National Environmental Policy Act's (NEPA) requirements were not met when petitioner forest service granted a permit for a ski resort, in an action by respondent citizens council. NEPA did not require a fully developed plan detailing what steps would be taken to mitigate adverse environmental impacts and did not require a "worst case analysis."
FACTS: Respondent citizens council brought an action to challenge the decision of petitioner forest service in granting a permit for a ski development, claiming that the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements, under 42 U.S.C.S. § 4332, were not met. The district court held that an early winter study met § 4332 requirements. On appeal, the appellate court reversed. The court granted certiorari and reversed the appellate court's decision because it misapplied NEPA and gave inadequate deference to petitioner. The court held that that NEPA did not require a fully developed plan detailing what steps would be taken to mitigate adverse environmental impacts and did not require a "worst case analysis." In addition, the court held that petitioner adopted a permissible interpretation of its own regulations.
CONCLUSION: The court reversed the appellate court's finding that the National Environmental Policy Act's (NEPA) requirements were not met when petitioner forest service granted a permit for a ski resort, in an action by respondent citizens council. NEPA did not require a fully developed plan detailing what steps would be taken to mitigate adverse environmental impacts and did not require a "worst case analysis."
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
No comments:
Post a Comment