Civic Improvement Committee v. Volpe

Fourth Circuit

Civic Improvement Committee v. Volpe

459 F.2d 957, 4 ERC 1163

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedMay 15, 1972

DocketNo. 72-1413

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 459 F.2d 957 (Civic Improvement Committee v. Volpe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Civic Improvement Committee v. Volpe, 459 F.2d 957, 4 ERC 1163 (4th Cir. 1972).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM:

Since the issuance of the partial preliminary injunction pending appeal the United States Attorney has filed a memorandum in this court stating the Government’s position to be that the Sharon Lane project in Charlotte is entirely a “State project, and is not to be approved or rejected by the Secretary of Transportation . . ., nor dependent upon ‘Federal supervision’ . . ., nor subject to any question of compliance with Federal ‘statutory and regulatory standards’ . . ..” The United States respectfully suggests that before any court could mandate compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act it would be necessary for plaintiffs to show the eventuality of Federal participation in the Sharon Lane project.

Despite the breadth of the NEPA we think there are doubtless local projects that may be destructive of environmental assets that are not within the ambit and protection of the Act. If America’s environment is to be preserved in accordance with the national policy expressed by the Congress the gap will have to be filled with state and local legislation. Indeed, there already exists a statute of North Carolina looking toward the preservation of ecological values. N.C.G.S. 113A. Nothing contained in our decision is intended to foreclose resort to state and local remedies.

We hold that the failure and refusal of the district judge to issue a preliminary injunction was not an abuse of his discretion. The partial preliminary injunction pending appeal is vacated.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Since the issuance of the partial preliminary injunction pending appeal the United States Attorney has filed a memorandum in this court stating the Government’s position to be that the Sharon Lane project in Charlotte is entirely a “State project, and is not to be approved or rejected by the Secretary of Transportation . . ., nor dependent upon ‘Federal supervision’ . . ., nor subject to any question of compliance with Federal ‘statutory and regulatory standards’ . . ..” The United States respectfully suggests that before any court could mandate compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act it would be necessary for plaintiffs to show the eventuality of Federal participation in the Sharon Lane project.

Despite the breadth of the NEPA we think there are doubtless local projects that may be destructive of environmental assets that are not within the ambit and protection of the Act. If America’s environment is to be preserved in accordance with the national policy expressed by the Congress the gap will have to be filled with state and local legislation. Indeed, there already exists a statute of North Carolina looking toward the preservation of ecological values. N.C.G.S. 113A. Nothing contained in our decision is intended to foreclose resort to state and local remedies.

We hold that the failure and refusal of the district judge to issue a preliminary injunction was not an abuse of his discretion. The partial preliminary injunction pending appeal is vacated.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

459 F.2d 957, 4 ERC 1163, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/civic-improvement-committee-v-volpe-ca4-1972.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack