City of Lufkin, Texas v. Benjamin F. Gibson

447 F.2d 492, 1 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20438, 3 ERC (BNA) 1370, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 8614, 3 ERC 1370
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedAugust 9, 1971
Docket71-1461_1
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 447 F.2d 492 (City of Lufkin, Texas v. Benjamin F. Gibson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
City of Lufkin, Texas v. Benjamin F. Gibson, 447 F.2d 492, 1 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20438, 3 ERC (BNA) 1370, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 8614, 3 ERC 1370 (5th Cir. 1971).

Opinion

BY THE COURT:

On the hearing of this case on oral argument the Court instructed counsel to prepare a proposed decree for entry by the District Court on direction from this Court on the hypothesis that the order of the District Court under review had to be reversed, vacated or otherwise set aside and the case remanded to the District Court. Counsel were directed to collaborate with each other in the preparation of this proposed decree and to agree on every item to which there could reasonably be an agreement without sacrificing legal positions, and as to those matters on which they could not agree, then each was to submit his own proposed wording for that particular part or portions together with a memorandum setting for the reasons pro and con. The Court has been informed by Robert L. Flournoy, Esquire, Counsel for the City of Lufkin, that after repeated ef *493 forts, he has been unable to get any sort of cooperation from his adversary, and at the request of the Court he has made this known to the Court by his letter of July 8, 1971.

The Court regards this as a deliberate unwillingness on the part of counsel for the appellees to comply with the orders of this Court, and accordingly it is ordered :

The appeal is granted, the injunctions heretofore entered by the District Court are vacated and reversed, and the cause is remanded to the District Court which shall retain jurisdiction of the matter to enable it to consider whether on application of the plaintiffs made immediately prior to construction of the sewer treatment facility relief is appropriate or desirable or required within the jurisdiction and power of the United States District Court and any appropriate federal statutes. Costs of the appeal are taxed against the appellees.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Monarch Chemical Works, Inc. v. Exon
452 F. Supp. 493 (D. Nebraska, 1978)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
447 F.2d 492, 1 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20438, 3 ERC (BNA) 1370, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 8614, 3 ERC 1370, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-lufkin-texas-v-benjamin-f-gibson-ca5-1971.