23 C.F.R. § 625.1
Purpose
To designate those standards, policies, and standard specifications that are acceptable to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for application in the geometric and structural design of highways.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1995–2026 · leading case: Conservation Law Found. v. Fed. High. Admin., 630 F. Supp. 2d 183 (D.N.H. 2007).
Conservation Law Found. v. Fed. High. Admin., 630 F. Supp. 2d 183 (D.N.H. 2007). “See 23 C.F.R. § 625.1 et seq. Accordingly, I agree with Defendants that CLF lacks an actionable claim under § 109(b).”
Clark Const. Co., Inc. v. Pena, 895 F. Supp. 1483 (M.D. Ala. 1995). “See 23 CFR § 625.1 . 4 . Since the FHWA provides in excess of 75% of the funding for a project, it is granted substantial oversight and approval authority in a number of areas.”
Taubman Realty Grp. Ltd. P'ship v. Mineta, 320 F.3d 475 (4th Cir. 2003). “§ 111 (a); 23 C.F.R. §§ 625.1 to 625.4. In this regard, TRG’s complaint alleges that operation of Short Pump Town Center will create such significant traffic congestion of the existing roadways in the vicinity of the development site for Short Pump Town Center that the FHWA will…”
Kristina L. Ives, Individually v. Hmb Prof'l Engineers, Inc. (Ky. Ct. App. 2024). “18 The NHS design regulations are set forth in 23 C.F.R. § 625.1 et seq. The policy behind the regulations is set forth in 23 C.”
Wsp USA Inc. v. Kristina Ives, Individually (Ky. 2026). “§ 104 ; 23 C.F.R. § 625.1 ; § 625.3; § 625.4. Moreover, in the present appeal, the entire highway project, including the work of the Engineers, was subject to the evaluation, supervision, and final decision-making authority of the Transportation Cabinet.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.