§Why CasetextPricing

In the Matter of Sierra Club, et al., Appellants,v.Village of Painted Post, et al., Respondents.

Brief

64 Cited authorities

  1. Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife

    504 U.S. 555 (1992)   Cited 27,807 times   138 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the elements of standing "must be supported in the same way as any other matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof"

  2. Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council

    490 U.S. 332 (1989)   Cited 1,388 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding NEPA does not require a "worst case analysis"

  3. Sierra Club v. Morton

    405 U.S. 727 (1972)   Cited 2,781 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plaintiff-organization did not establish Article III standing for injunctive relief where the organization failed to show that its members would be affected by the actions it sought to enjoin

  4. United States v. Scrap

    412 U.S. 669 (1973)   Cited 1,364 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the trial court did not err in denying motion to dismiss based on lack of standing because appellees sufficiently alleged "that their members used the forests, streams, mountains, and other resources in the Washington metropolitan area for camping, hiking, fishing, and sightseeing, and that this use was disturbed by the adverse environmental impact caused by the nonuse of recyclable goods brought about by a rate increase on those commodities"

  5. Society of Plastics v. Suffolk

    77 N.Y.2d 761 (N.Y. 1991)   Cited 958 times   3 Legal Analyses
    In Society of Plastics Indus. v. County of Suffolk, 77 N.Y.2d 761, 570 N.Y.S.2d 778, 573 N.E.2d 1034 (1991), this Court examined the law of standing, and set forth a framework for deciding whether parties have standing to challenge governmental action in land use matters generally, and under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (ECL art. 8 [SEQRA]), specifically.

  6. Sun-Brite v. Bd. of Zoning

    69 N.Y.2d 406 (N.Y. 1987)   Cited 374 times
    Explaining that " leaseholder may ... have the same standing to challenge municipal zoning action as the owner."

  7. Akpan v. Koch

    75 N.Y.2d 561 (N.Y. 1990)   Cited 335 times
    In Akpan v. Koch (75 N.Y.2d 561, 570), the Court of Appeals recently explained that: "Judicial review of a lead agency's SEQRA determination is limited to whether the determination was made in accordance with lawful procedure and whether, substantively, the determination 'was affected by an error of law or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion' * * *.

  8. Dairylea Coop. v. Walkley

    38 N.Y.2d 6 (N.Y. 1975)   Cited 342 times
    In Matter of Dairylea Coop. v Walkley (38 N.Y.2d 6), we set forth a two-part test for determining when a party has standing to contest administrative action.

  9. Save the Pine Bush v. Common Council

    2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 7667 (N.Y. 2009)   Cited 117 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Matter of Save the Pine Bush, Inc. v. Common Council of City of Albany, 13 N.Y.3d 297, 890 N.Y.S.2d 405, 918 N.E.2d 917, the Court of Appeals held that, in land-use and environmental cases, “a person who can prove that he or she uses and enjoys a natural resource more than most other members of the public has standing... to challenge government actions that threaten that resource” (id. at 301, 890 N.Y.S.2d 405, 918 N.E.2d 917).

  10. Society Hill Towers Owners' Assn. v. Rendell

    210 F.3d 168 (3d Cir. 2000)   Cited 143 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[t]he Residents have alleged concrete and particularized injury in the form of increased traffic, pollution, and noise"

  11. Section 4332 - Cooperation of agencies; reports; availability of information; recommendations; international and national coordination of efforts

    42 U.S.C. § 4332   Cited 3,613 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Requiring that agencies prepare environmental impact statements where major agency action would significantly affect the environment

  12. Section 617.2 - Definitions

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 6 § 617.2   Cited 416 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Defining “negative declaration” as a “written determination by a lead agency that the implementation of [an] action as proposed will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts”

  13. Section 617.7 - Determining significance

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 6 § 617.7   Cited 239 times   3 Legal Analyses

    (a) The lead agency must determine the significance of any Type I or Unlisted action in writing in accordance with this section. (1) To require an EIS for a proposed action, the lead agency must determine that the action may include the potential for at least one significant adverse environmental impact. (2) To determine that an EIS will not be required for an action, the lead agency must determine either that there will be no adverse environmental impacts or that the identified adverse environmental

  14. Section 617.3 - General rules

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 6 § 617.3   Cited 166 times

    (a) No agency involved in an action may undertake, fund or approve the action until it has complied with the provisions of SEQR. A project sponsor may not commence any physical alteration related to an action until the provisions of SEQR have been complied with. The only exception to this is provided under section 617.5(c) (24), (27), and (34) of this Part. An involved agency may not issue its findings and decision on an action if it knows any other involved agency has determined that the action

  15. Section 617.5 - Type II Actions

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 6 § 617.5   Cited 153 times   4 Legal Analyses

    (a) Actions or classes of actions identified in subdivision (c) of this section are not subject to review under this Part, except as otherwise provided in this section. These actions have been determined not to have a significant impact on the environment or are otherwise precluded from environmental review under Environmental Conservation Law, article 8. The actions identified in subdivision (c) of this section apply to all agencies. (b) Each agency may adopt its own list of Type II actions to supplement

  16. Section 617.4 - Type I actions

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 6 § 617.4   Cited 143 times   2 Legal Analyses

    (a) The purpose of the list of Type I actions in this section is to identify, for agencies, project sponsors and the public, those actions and projects that are more likely to require the preparation of an EIS than Unlisted actions. All agencies are subject to this Type I list. (1) This Type I list is not exhaustive of those actions that an agency determines may have a significant adverse impact on the environment and requires the preparation of an EIS. However, the fact that an action or project

  17. Section 617.12 - Document preparation, filing, publication and distribution

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 6 § 617.12   Cited 78 times   1 Legal Analyses

    The following SEQR documents must be prepared, filed, published and made available as prescribed in this section. (a) Preparation of documents. (1) Each negative declaration, positive declaration, notice of completion of an EIS, notice of hearing and findings must contain the following: the name and address of the lead agency; the name, address and telephone number of a person who can provide additional information; a brief description of the action; the SEQR classification; and, the location of

  18. Section 601.12 - General provisions of a water withdrawal permit

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 6 § 601.12   Cited 1 times

    The following provisions apply to water withdrawal permits including public water supply permits issued prior to April 1, 2013: (a) The water withdrawal system shall not supply or be committed to supply water beyond the amounts approved by the department. (b) The permittee shall, at all times, properly operate and maintain all facilities which are installed or used by the permittee to achieve compliance with the conditions of the permit. (c) The permittee shall ensure that the intake structure for