Sierra Club v. Envtl. Prot. Agency (2018)
green
· 19 citation events
across 5 courts.
Showing the 7 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
Sierra Club v. EPA (2020)
Cir. 2018). 112 Id. at 1195 . 113 Id. (“EPA relied on the same data it had elsewhere decisively characterized as untrustworthy.”). 114 Id. at 1197 . 115 Response Br. at 39; JA12. 116 JA342. 24 three times the daytime emissions.
“EPA relied on the same data it had elsewhere decisively characterized as untrustworthy.”
green
Sierra Club v. EPA (2020)
Cir. 2018). 112 Id. at 1195 . 113 Id. (“EPA relied on the same data it had elsewhere decisively characterized as untrustworthy.”). 114 Id. at 1197 . 115 Response Br. at 39; JA12. 116 JA342. 24 three times the daytime emissions.
“EPA relied on the same data it had elsewhere decisively characterized as untrustworthy.”
green
Clean Wisconsin v. EPA (2020)
Cf. Sierra Club v. EPA, 884 F.3d 1185, 1196 (D.C.
“[D]escribing [emissions] as ‘low,’ even ‘extremely low,’ . . . implies that [they] have not been entirely eliminated.”
green
Sepehry-Fard v. United States (2019)
Cir. Aug. 24, 2018) (relying on Erickson); Ottah v. Fiat Chrysler, 884 F.3d 1185, 1141 (Fed.
green
Chesapeake Climate Action Network v. EPA (2020)
Cir. 2008) (citing § 7412(d)(2)).2 Congress recognized that numerical HAP emission limits for MACT standards may not always be “feasible,” so it included § 7412(h), which enables EPA to promulgate number- alternative standards called “work practice” standards. § 7412(h); see Sierra Club v. EPA, 884 F.3d 1185, 1190 (D.C.
green
Citizens Telecommunications v. FCC (2018)
See Sierra Club v. E.P.A., 884 F.3d 1185, 1195 (D.C.
holding that the EPA was arbitrary and capricious when it based a conclusion on data it found unreliable
See Sierra Club v. E.P.A. , 884 F.3d 1185 , 1195 (D.C.
holding that the EPA was arbitrary and capricious when it based a conclusion on data it found unreliable