528 U.S. 167 (2000) Cited 7,169 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
Approving statute that, as construed, "allows the official only to consider whether a proposed mass gathering presents unreasonable risks to life or health"
Holding that “a complaint for nominal damages could satisfy Article III's case or controversy requirements, when a functionally identical claim for declaratory relief will not”
Holding that the plaintiff had standing to challenge a law blocking its posting of certain advertising even though the plaintiff had not sought a permit, which was an additional impediment to the advertising