Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources
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. 360 (1989)
CASE SYNOPSIS: Petitioners, Army Corps
of Engineers and associated agencies, appealed the judgment of the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Oregon), which
reversed the district court's order denying relief to respondent
nonprofit corporations for their National Environmental Policy Act of
1969, 42 U.S.C.S. § 4321 et seq., claims and permanent injunction of
construction of a dam.
FACTS: Respondent nonprofit corporations filed an action seeking to enjoin petitioners, Army Corps of Engineers and associated agencies, from constructing a dam, claiming that petitioners violated the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C.S. § 4321 et seq., by failing to prepare a second supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to review information developed after the final EIS supplement (FEISS) was completed. After the appeals court reversed the district court's judgment for petitioners, petitioners appealed. The court reversed and remanded, holding that because petitioners' decision not to supplement the FEISS was not "arbitrary or capricious," was based on careful scientific analysis that the new information was of exaggerated importance, petitioners conducted a reasoned evaluation of the relevant information and reached a decision that was within the dictates of the NEPA. The information developed after the completion of the EIS did not require that a supplemental EIS be prepared before construction of the dam could continue.
CONCLUSION: The judgment was reversed and remanded.
FACTS: Respondent nonprofit corporations filed an action seeking to enjoin petitioners, Army Corps of Engineers and associated agencies, from constructing a dam, claiming that petitioners violated the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C.S. § 4321 et seq., by failing to prepare a second supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to review information developed after the final EIS supplement (FEISS) was completed. After the appeals court reversed the district court's judgment for petitioners, petitioners appealed. The court reversed and remanded, holding that because petitioners' decision not to supplement the FEISS was not "arbitrary or capricious," was based on careful scientific analysis that the new information was of exaggerated importance, petitioners conducted a reasoned evaluation of the relevant information and reached a decision that was within the dictates of the NEPA. The information developed after the completion of the EIS did not require that a supplemental EIS be prepared before construction of the dam could continue.
CONCLUSION: The judgment was reversed and remanded.
---
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