60 Cited authorities

  1. Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife

    504 U.S. 555 (1992)   Cited 21,475 times   122 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a sufficient specification of when the injury in fact will occur is necessary
  2. Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency

    549 U.S. 497 (2007)   Cited 851 times   83 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Clean Air Act provided Massachusetts a procedural right to challenge the EPA's rulemaking and that Massachusetts suffered an injury in its capacity as a quasi-sovereign landowner due to rising sea levels associated with climate change
  3. Sierra Club v. Morton

    405 U.S. 727 (1972)   Cited 2,558 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an organization's abstract interest in a problem, without direct harm, is insufficient to establish standing
  4. Federal Election Comm'n v. Akins

    524 U.S. 11 (1998)   Cited 675 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that inability to obtain information is an injury in fact
  5. United States v. Scrap

    412 U.S. 669 (1973)   Cited 1,279 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"
  6. Euclid v. Ambler Co.

    272 U.S. 365 (1926)   Cited 2,315 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a zoning ordinance that "greatly ... reduce[d] the value of appellee's lands and destroy[ed] their marketability for industrial, commercial and residential uses" constituted a "present invasion of appellee's property rights"
  7. Society of Plastics v. Suffolk

    77 N.Y.2d 761 (N.Y. 1991)   Cited 813 times   2 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.
  8. 532 Madison Ave. Gourmet Foods v. Finlandia Ctr.

    96 N.Y.2d 280 (N.Y. 2001)   Cited 278 times
    Noting with approval the Appellate Division's decision in Dunlop Tire & Rubber Corp. v. FMC Corp. , 53 A.D.2d 150, 151-52, 385 N.Y.S.2d 971, 972 (4th Dep't 1976), which allowed the plaintiff to recover not only for physical damage to its property caused by a nearby explosion, but also for the economic loss from being forced temporarily to close because the explosion caused the loss of electrical power
  9. Sun-Brite v. Bd. of Zoning

    69 N.Y.2d 406 (N.Y. 1987)   Cited 339 times
    In Matter of Sun-Brite Car Wash v Board of Zoning Appeals (69 N.Y.2d 406) we extended standing to challenge zoning determinations to property holders in the immediate vicinity of the premises which were the subject of a zoning determination, without their having to plead and prove special damages or injury in fact.
  10. Tourgeman v. Collins Fin. Servs., Inc.

    755 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir. 2014)   Cited 130 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding material statements are those that could "cause the least sophisticated debtor to suffer a disadvantage in charting a course of action in response to the collection effort"
  11. Section 617.7 - Determining significance

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 6 § 617.7   Cited 214 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

  12. Section 617.6 - Initial review of actions and establishing lead agency

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 6 § 617.6   Cited 185 times

    (a) Initial review of actions (1) As early as possible in an agency's formulation of an action it proposes to undertake, or as soon as an agency receives an application for funding or for approval of an action, it must do the following: (i) Determine whether the action is subject to SEQR. If the action is a Type II action, the agency has no further responsibilities under this Part; (ii) Determine whether the action involves a federal agency. If the action involves a federal agency, the provisions

  13. Section 617.3 - General rules

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 6 § 617.3   Cited 154 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