Pizitz, Inc., D/B/A Pizitz v. John A. Volpe, in His Rep. Capacity as Sec'y of the United States Dep't of Transp., 467 F.2d 208 (5th Cir. 1972). · Go Syfert
Search
Pizitz, Inc., D/B/A Pizitz v. John A. Volpe, in His Rep. Capacity as Sec'y of the United States Dep't of Transp., 467 F.2d 208 (5th Cir. 1972). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
8 citation events across 7 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Hill v. Tennessee Valley Authority (tned, 1976-05-25)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Hill v. Tennessee Valley Authority
E.D. Tenn. · 1976 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e. g., Pizitz v. Volpe, 467 F.2d 208 (5th Cir. 1972); Greene County Planning Board v. Federal Power Commission, 455 F.2d 412, 424 (2d Cir.) cert. den. 409 U.S. 849 , 93 S.Ct. 56 , 34 L.Ed.2d 90 (1972).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
PIZITZ, INC., D/B/A Pizitz, Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
John A. VOLPE, in His Representative Capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of Transportation, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
72-1995.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Oct 20, 1972.
467 F.2d 208
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.
Tuttle, Coleman, Clark.
Cited by 8 opinions  |  Published
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’ ease 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 eases 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.