Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Pizitz, Inc., D/b/a Pizitz, et al., Plaintiffs-appellants, v. John A. Volpe, in His Representative Capacity As Secretaryof the United States Department of Transportation,et al., Defendants-appellees
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. - 467 F.2d 208
July 11, 1972.As Amended Oct. 20, 1972
Dieter J. Schrader, Huntsville, Ala., for plaintiffs-appellants.
Lucian L. Smith, Jr., Legal Counsel, Ala. State Highway Dept., Ira DeMent, U. S. Atty., Kenneth E. Vines, Asst. U. S. Atty., Montgomery, Ala., for defendants-appellees.
Before TUTTLE, COLEMAN and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
This is an appeal from the refusal of the district court to enjoin substantial construction changes in an express highway artery at Huntsville, Alabama, on the alleged ground that the changes were being made without compliance with the applicable federal environmental statutes.
The weakness of the plaintiffs-appellants' case is that the work that was in process was a part of an approved design which, when it was approved, met all requirements. It contemplated each of the changes that are now being undertaken. While in some cases one might turn a sympathetic ear towards a contention that certain requirements of the national environmental protection act have retroactive application, it does not seem appropriate in a case like the present, as to which all standards required to be complied with had been completed when this specific project was originally approved.
The judgment is affirmed.