§Why CasetextPricing

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

Brief

60 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. Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency

    549 U.S. 497 (2007)   Cited 1,156 times   97 Legal Analyses
    Holding that denials of petitions for rulemaking are judicially reviewable

  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. Federal Election Comm'n v. Akins

    524 U.S. 11 (1998)   Cited 780 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding that inability to procure information to which Congress has created a right in the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 qualifies as concrete injury satisfying Article III's standing requirement

  5. 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"

  6. 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.

  7. Euclid v. Ambler Co.

    272 U.S. 365 (1926)   Cited 2,413 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"

  8. 532 Madison Ave. Gourmet Foods v. Finlandia Ctr.

    96 N.Y.2d 280 (N.Y. 2001)   Cited 338 times   1 Legal Analyses
    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 374 times
    Explaining that " leaseholder may ... have the same standing to challenge municipal zoning action as the owner."

  10. Tourgeman v. Collins Fin. Servs., Inc.

    755 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir. 2014)   Cited 163 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 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

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

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 6 § 617.6   Cited 205 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 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