§Why CasetextPricing

Chesapeake Climate Action Network et al v. Export-Import Bank of the United States et al

MOTION for Summary Judgment

37 Cited authorities

  1. Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife

    504 U.S. 555 (1992)   Cited 28,036 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. Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc.

    528 U.S. 167 (2000)   Cited 7,204 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plaintiffs who curtailed their recreational activities on a river due to reasonable concerns about the effect of pollutant discharges into that river had standing

  3. Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman

    455 U.S. 363 (1982)   Cited 2,037 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an organization suffers injury in fact when its key activities are "perceptibly impaired" and its resources "consequent[ly] drain[ed]"

  4. Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.

    462 U.S. 87 (1983)   Cited 1,151 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "a reviewing court must generally be at its most deferential" when examining an agency decision made "within its area of special expertise, at the frontiers of science"

  5. WildEarth Guardians v. Jewell

    738 F.3d 298 (D.C. Cir. 2013)   Cited 133 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that BLM properly considered a proposed coal mine's cumulative climate change impact where it "evaluated GHG emissions as a percentage of state—and nation-wide emissions."

  6. American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v. Feld Entertainment, Inc.

    659 F.3d 13 (D.C. Cir. 2011)   Cited 118 times
    Finding that plaintiff's desired enforcement of a statutory provision would not result in disclosure of information, "even under [plaintiff's] view" of that provision

  7. Committee to Save the Rio Hondo v. Lucero

    102 F.3d 445 (10th Cir. 1996)   Cited 136 times
    Holding that "[t]o demonstrate that the increased risk of harm injures the plaintiff's concrete interests, the litigant must establish either its `geographical nexus' to, or actual use of the site" such that it may suffer environmental consequences from the agency's action

  8. Comcast Corp. v. F.C.C

    579 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2009)   Cited 70 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an agency rule was arbitrary and capricious when the agency "failed to 'examine[] the relevant data and articulate[] a satisfactory explanation for its action'" (alterations in original) (quoting Fresno Mobile Radio v. FCC, 165 F.3d 965, 168 (D.C. Cir 1999))

  9. City of Dania Beach v. Federal Aviation Administration

    485 F.3d 1181 (D.C. Cir. 2007)   Cited 75 times
    Holding that "the FAA’s failure to follow the proper review procedures before authorizing" the use of certain runways was reviewable upon dissemination of the decision

  10. Southwest Williamson County v. Slater

    243 F.3d 270 (6th Cir. 2001)   Cited 90 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a plaintiff may not sue the Tennessee Department of Transportation under the APA

  11. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 329,861 times   158 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

  12. Section 1331 - Federal question

    28 U.S.C. § 1331   Cited 97,914 times   136 Legal Analyses
    Finding that in order to invoke federal question jurisdiction, a plaintiff's claims must arise "under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States."

  13. Section 706 - Scope of review

    5 U.S.C. § 706   Cited 20,510 times   185 Legal Analyses
    Granting courts jurisdiction to "compel agency action unlawfully held or unreasonably delayed"

  14. Section 701 - Application; definitions

    5 U.S.C. § 701   Cited 9,405 times   36 Legal Analyses
    Adopting the definition given in Section 551

  15. Section 702 - Right of review

    5 U.S.C. § 702   Cited 7,091 times   24 Legal Analyses
    Granting judicial review of "agency action"

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

    42 U.S.C. § 4332   Cited 3,620 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Requiring that agencies prepare environmental impact statements where major agency action would significantly affect the environment

  17. Section 4321 - Congressional declaration of purpose

    42 U.S.C. § 4321   Cited 3,501 times   30 Legal Analyses
    Describing the purposes of NEPA as including "encourag[ing] productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment"

  18. Section 635i-5 - Environmental policy and procedures

    12 U.S.C. § 635i-5   Cited 3 times

    (a) Environmental effects consideration (1) In general Consistent with the objectives of section 635(b)(1)(A) of this title, the Bank shall establish procedures to take into account the potential beneficial and adverse environmental effects of goods and services for which support is requested under its direct lending and guarantee programs. Such procedures shall provide for the public disclosure of environmental assessments and supplemental environmental reports required to be submitted to the Bank

  19. Section 635a-4 - Guarantees for export accounts receivable and inventory

    12 U.S.C. § 635a-4   Cited 2 times
    Directing the Bank to "establish a program to provide guarantees . . . when in the judgment of the Board of Directors -- the private credit market is not providing adequate financing . . . ; and such guarantees would facilitate expansion of exports which would not otherwise occur"

  20. Section 771.117 - FHWA categorical exclusions

    23 C.F.R. § 771.117   Cited 43 times   5 Legal Analyses

    (a) CEs are actions that meet the definition contained in 40 CFR 1508.4 , and, based on FHWA's past experience with similar actions, do not involve significant environmental impacts. They are actions that: Do not induce significant impacts to planned growth or land use for the area; do not require the relocation of significant numbers of people; do not have a significant impact on any natural, cultural, recreational, historic or other resource; do not involve significant air, noise, or water quality

  21. Section 46.215 - Categorical exclusions: Extraordinary circumstances

    43 C.F.R. § 46.215   Cited 22 times   2 Legal Analyses

    Extraordinary circumstances (see paragraph 46.205(c)) exist for individual actions within categorical exclusions that may meet any of the criteria listed in paragraphs (a) through (l) of this section. Applicability of extraordinary circumstances to categorical exclusions is determined by the Responsible Official. (a) Have significant impacts on public health or safety. (b) Have significant impacts on such natural resources and unique geographic characteristics as historic or cultural resources; park

  22. Section 408.6 - Typical classes of action

    12 C.F.R. § 408.6   Cited 3 times

    (a) Section 1507.3(c)(2) of the NEPA Regulations in conjunction with § 1508.4 thereof requires agencies to establish three typical classes of action for similar treatment under NEPA. These typical classes of action are set forth below: Actions normally requiring EIS's Actions normally requiring assessments but not necessarily EIS's Actions normally not requiring assessments or EIS's None Applications for Eximbank financing under the direct lending program in support of transactions for which determinations

  23. Section 408.1 - Background

    12 C.F.R. § 408.1

    (a) The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) establishes national policies and goals for the protection of the environment. Section 102(2) of NEPA contains certain procedural requirements directed toward the attainment of such goals. In particular, all Federal agencies are required to give appropriate consideration to the environmental effects of their proposed actions in their decision-making and to prepare detailed environmental statements on recommendations