Richard J. Brooks, a Citizen v. John A. Volpe, as Sec'y of the United States Dep't of Transp., Richard J. Brooks, a Citizen v. John A. Volpe, as Sec'y of the United States Dep't of Transp., Fed. & Washington State High. Comm'n, State, 487 F.2d 1344 (9th Cir. 1973). · Go Syfert
Search
Richard J. Brooks, a Citizen v. John A. Volpe, as Sec'y of the United States Dep't of Transp., Richard J. Brooks, a Citizen v. John A. Volpe, as Sec'y of the United States Dep't of Transp., Fed. & Washington State High. Comm'n, State, 487 F.2d 1344 (9th Cir. 1973). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
13 citation events across 8 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Bucks County Board of Commissioners v. Interstate Energy Co. (paed, 1975-11-17)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" Bucks County Board of Commissioners v. Interstate Energy Co.
E.D. Pa. · 1975 · signal: see · confidence high
See Brooks v. Volpe, 350 F.Supp. 269 (W.D.Wash.1972), aff’d, 487 F.2d 1344 (9th Cir. 1973) ; Iowa Citizens for Environmental Quality, Inc. v. Volpe, 487 F.2d 849 (8th Cir. 1973).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Ashwood Manor Civic Ass'n v. Dole
E.D. Pa. · 1985 · signal: see also · confidence low
Federation of Civic Associations v. Volpe, 459 F.2d 1231 , 1249 (D.C.Cir.1972) (“the Secretary himself must decide,” meaning Secretary must reach decision on the merits, not on the basis of political pressure), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 1030 , 92 S.Ct. 1290 , 31 L.Ed.2d 489 (1975); Environmental Defense Fund v. Brinegar, 4 E.L.R. 20,534, 20,542 (E.D.Pa. 1974) (“The responsibility for making the determination mandated by § 4(f) lies, of course, with the Secretary of U.S. DOT and not with this Court.”); Lathan v. Volpe, 350 F.Supp. 262, 267 (W.D.Wash.1972) (“the Secretary alone must make…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Richard J. Brooks, a Citizen
v.
John A. Volpe, as Secretary of the United States Department of Transportation, Richard J. Brooks, a Citizen v. John A. Volpe, as Secretary of the United States Department of Transportation, Federal and Washington State Highway Commission, State
72-2543.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Dec 7, 1973.
487 F.2d 1344
Published

487 F.2d 1344

Richard J. BROOKS, a citizen, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
John A. VOLPE, as Secretary of the United States Department
of Transportation, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Richard J. BROOKS, a citizen, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
John A. VOLPE, as Secretary of the United States Department
of Transportation, et al., Federal Defendant, and
Washington State Highway Commission et
al., State Defendant-Appellants.

Nos. 72-2543, 72-2981.

United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.

Dec. 7, 1973.

Irving M. Clark, Jr. (argued), J. Richard Aramburu, Seattle, Wash., for plaintiffs-appellants.

Albert E. Stephan, Asst. U. S. Atty., Seattle, Wash., Robert B. Rutledge, Regional Counsel, U. S. Dept. of Trans., Portland, Or., Thomas R. Garlington, Asst. Atty. Gen. (argued), Olympia, Wash., for defendants-appellees.

Before LUMBARD,[*] BROWNING and DUNIWAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

This is another I-90 case, involving a proposal to add three lanes to the existing highway through the Snoqualmie Pass in the State of Washington. The primary issues on appeal concern the district court's ruling that the environmental impact and section 4(f) statements prepared by the defendants in response to our decision in Brooks v. Volpe, 9 Cir., 1972, 460 F.2d 1193, do not comply with statutory standards. We affirm the district court's holding on the authority of its opinion, 350 F.Supp. 269.

2

In addition, plaintiffs seek an order enjoining the further performance of four construction contracts which had been let at the time of the district court's ruling on the impact and 4(f) statements. However, the defendants inform us that these contracts have been terminated since the filing of this appeal, and the district court specifically enjoined the letting of new contracts. The plaintiffs having received the relief which they requested, we need not decide whether the district court's order permitting work on those contracts to continue violated our mandate in Brooks v. Volpe, supra.

3

Affirmed.

*

The Honorable J. Edward Lumbard, Senior United States Circuit Judge, Second Circuit, sitting by designation