Nat'l Ctr. For Pres. Law v. Moon Landrieu, 635 F.2d 324 (4th Cir. 1980). · Go Syfert
Search
Nat'l Ctr. For Pres. Law v. Moon Landrieu, 635 F.2d 324 (4th Cir. 1980). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
24 citation events (3 in the last 25 years) across 14 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Committee to Save Cleveland's Huletts v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ohnd, 2001-03-30)
Treatment trajectory · 1980 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1980 2003 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Committee to Save Cleveland's Huletts v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
N.D. Ohio · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See Nat’l Ctr. for Preservation Law v. Landrieu, 496 F.Supp. 716 , 742 (D.S.C.) aff'd. per curiam, 635 F.2d 324 (4th Cir.1980) (holding that the ACHP has exclusive authority to determine the methods for compliance with NHPA); Nat’l Trust for Historic Preservation v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 552 F.Supp. 784, 790-91 (S.D.Ohio 1982) (“holding that the ACHP’s regulations govern the implementation of § 106 for all federal agencies”); 16 U.S.C. § 470s (the ACHP may “promulgate such rules and regulations as it deems necessary to govern the implementation of [Section 106] ... in its…
cited Cited "see" Waterford Citizens' Association v. Reilly
4th Cir. · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
See National Center for Preservation Law v. Landrieu, 496 F.Supp. 716 (D.S.C.), aff'd per curiam, 635 F.2d 324 (4th Cir.1980).
discussed Cited "see" Atura Coalition v. Nyc Dept. of Env. Prot.
S.D.N.Y. · 1988 · signal: see · confidence high
See National Center for Preservation Law v. Landrieu, 496 F.Supp. 716, 738-40 (D.S.C.) (upholding HUD's delegation of National Historic Preservation Act responsibilities based on the 1979 amendment to § 104 of HCDA and the explanatory conference report), aff'd, 635 F.2d 324 (4th Cir.1980).
discussed Cited "see" Atlantic Terminal Urban Renewal Area Coalition v. New York City Department of Environmental Protection
S.D.N.Y. · 1988 · signal: see · confidence high
See National Center for Preservation Law v. Landrieu, 496 F.Supp. 716, 738-40 (D.S.C.) (upholding HUD’s delegation of National Historic Preservation Act responsibilities based on the 1979 amendment to § 104 of HCDA and the explanatory conference report), aff'd, 635 F.2d 324 (4th Cir.1980).
cited Cited "see" Maryland Wildlife Federation v. Lewis
D. Maryland · 1983 · signal: see · confidence high
See National Center for Law v. Landrieu, 496 F.Supp. 716 (D.S.C.1980), aff’d 635 F.2d 324 (4th Cir.1980).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Vine Street Concerned Citizens, Inc. v. Dole
E.D. Pa. · 1985 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also National Center for Preservation Law v. Landrieu, 496 F.Supp. 716 , (D.S.C.), aff'd, 635 F.2d 324 (4th Cir.1980) (per curiam): Those opposing the agency action on NEPA grounds must advance evidence which is substantial and dependable to prove that an EIS is fatally flawed or a NEPA complaint will not withstand a motion for summary judgment. 496 F.Supp. at 737 (citations omitted).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Herbert Earl Brandon and Iva Marie Brandon v. Samuel R. Pierce, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, and the City of Stilwell, Oklahoma
10th Cir. · 1984 · signal: see also · confidence low
Thus, the statute makes clear that Congress intended to transfer NEPA responsibilities from the federal agency to the local grant applicant. 2 “To require HUD to make an independent environmental analysis, where the grant applicant has assumed that duty, would be duplicative, wasteful, and contrary to the [decentralization goals] as well as the explicit provisions of the act.” Colony Federal Savings & Loan Association v. Harris, 482 F.Supp. 296, 303 (W.D.Pa. 1980); see also National Center for Preservation Law v. Landrieu, 496 F.Supp. 716 , 731 (D.S.C.1980), affd, 635 F.2d 324 (4th Cir.198…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
National Center for Preservation Law, Preservation Society of Charleston, the Charlestown Neighborhood Association, Charlestown Village Association
v.
Moon Landrieu, as Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Robert T. Hall, as Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Administrator for Economic Development of the Economic Development Administration Richard H. Jenrette, as Chairman, and David K. Wilson, as Vice Chairman of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and Joseph P. Riley, Jr., as Mayor of the City of Charleston, South Carolina, a Municipal Corporation, the Municipal Association of South Carolina, Amicus Curiae
80-1597.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Dec 22, 1980.
635 F.2d 324
Published

635 F.2d 324

11 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,168

NATIONAL CENTER FOR PRESERVATION LAW, Preservation Society
of Charleston, The Charlestown Neighborhood
Association, Charlestown Village
Association, Appellants,
v.
Moon LANDRIEU, as Secretary of the Department of Housing and
Urban Development; Robert T. Hall, as Assistant Secretary of
Commerce and Administrator for Economic Development of the
Economic Development Administration; Richard H. Jenrette, as
Chairman, and David K. Wilson, as Vice Chairman of the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation; and Joseph P.
Riley, Jr., as Mayor of the City of Charleston, South
Carolina, a municipal corporation, Appellees.
The Municipal Association of South Carolina, Amicus Curiae.

No. 80-1597.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Argued Nov. 10, 1980.
Decided Dec. 22, 1980.

Patricia A. Barald, William M. Paul, Washington, D. C. (Theodore L. Garrett, David F. Williams, Covington & Burling, Washington, D. C., Mary Ann Marwick, Summerville, S. C., Henry Lord, Piper & Marbury, Baltimore, Md., on brief), for appellants.

Charlotte R. Bell, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C. (Anthony C. Liotta, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Washington, D. C., Thomas E. Lydon, U. S. Atty., Columbia, S. C., Heidi Solomon, Asst. U. S. Atty., Charleston, S. C., Anne S. Almy, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., on brief), for Federal appellees.

Marc L. Fleischaker, Columbia, S. C. (James A. Kidney, Charles R. Claxton, Arent, Fox, Kintner, Plotkin & Kahn, Washington, D. C., William B. Regan, Alice Paylor, Corp. Counsel, Charleston, S. C., on brief), for appellee, City of Charleston.

Huger Sinkler, Charleston, S. C. (M. William Youngblood, Sinkler Gibbs & Simons, Charleston, S. C., on brief), for amicus curiae Municipal Ass'n of South Carolina.

Before WINTER, PHILLIPS and MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

[*~324]1

Plaintiffs, three organizations of local citizens, many of whose members live in the residential neighborhoods adjacent to the Charleston Center Project proposed to be built in the heart of Charleston, South Carolina's Old and Historic District, appeal from a summary judgment entered against them. In the district court they sought, on a number of legal theories, declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Economic Development Administration (EDA) from disbursing two federal grants totaling $7.15 million to the City of Charleston. The grants were earmarked for various activities related to the Charleston Center Project, including acquisition of land for a parking garage, construction of street improvements, relocation of residents, and archeological studies. Plaintiffs also sought to enjoin the City from beginning construction of the Project.

2

Before us plaintiffs contend that (1) the Secretary of HUD and the Administrator of EDA improperly delegated to the City their responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4347; (2) the Secretary of HUD, the Administrator of EDA and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation failed to comply with the requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 470-470t, in approving the grants; (3) the Secretary of HUD violated the terms of the Housing and Community Development Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 5301-5317, and the regulations adopted thereunder in determining that the Charleston Center Project was eligible for funding by an Urban Development Action Grant; (4) Charleston's Supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Statement fails to satisfy the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act and the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality; and (5) political influence was exerted to affect improperly EDA's decision to award the grant and such improper influence requires reconsideration of the award by an impartial decisionmaker.

3

In an exhaustive and detailed opinion, the district court rejected all of plaintiffs' contentions-correctly, we think. We have examined with care the opinion of the district court and the contentions advanced on appeal, and we conclude that the opinion of the district court sufficiently answers each contention. We affirm for the reasons articulated therein. National Center for Preservation Law v. Landrieu, 496 F.Supp. 716 (D.C.S.C.1980).

[*~325]4

AFFIRMED.