Hawthorn Environmental Preservation Association v. William T. Coleman

551 F.2d 1055, 7 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20391, 10 ERC (BNA) 1176, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 13491
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedMay 9, 1977
Docket76-2795
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 551 F.2d 1055 (Hawthorn Environmental Preservation Association v. William T. Coleman) 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
Hawthorn Environmental Preservation Association v. William T. Coleman, 551 F.2d 1055, 7 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20391, 10 ERC (BNA) 1176, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 13491 (5th Cir. 1977).

Opinion

551 F.2d 1055

10 ERC 1176, 7 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,391

HAWTHORN ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION ASSOCIATION et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
William T. COLEMAN, Secretary of the United States
Department of Transportation, et al., Defendants,
Thomas D. Moreland, Commissioner of the Georgia Department
of Transportation, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 76-2795.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.

May 9, 1977.

Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Roland F. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Robert S. Stubbs, II, Exec. Asst. Atty. Gen., Richard L. Chambers, 1st Asst. Atty. Gen., Marion O. Gordon, Senior, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daniel M. Bennie, Asst. Reg. Counsel, Atlanta, Ga., Edmund B. Clark, Chief, Appellate Court, Lands Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for defendant-appellant.

Steven E. Fanning, George C. Rosenzweig, Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiffs-appellees.

Before GODBOLD and CLARK, Circuit Judges, and HOFFMAN,* District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from the district court's granting of a preliminary injunction1 restraining the state of Georgia from proceeding with the construction of a portion of a highway near Newnan, Georgia, without first preparing an environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 19692 and complying with other federal and state requirements. We have considered the interrelation between the Phase I and Phase II portions of the highway construction involved, the issue of segmentation, and the problem of when the federal imprimatur attaches to a state highway project. Under the limited review of an appeal from a temporary injunction, Morgan v. Fletcher, 518 F.2d 236, 239 (CA5, 1975), we find no misapplication of the law or abuse of discretion by the district judge.

AFFIRMED.

*

Senior District Judge of the Eastern District of Virginia, sitting by designation

1

417 F.Supp. 1091 (N.D.Ga., 1976)

2

42 U.S.C. §§ 4331 et seq

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

Related

Bennett v. Taylor
505 F. Supp. 800 (M.D. Louisiana, 1980)
Clark Park Citizens for Action v. City of Detroit
503 F. Supp. 1099 (E.D. Michigan, 1980)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
551 F.2d 1055, 7 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20391, 10 ERC (BNA) 1176, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 13491, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hawthorn-environmental-preservation-association-v-william-t-coleman-ca5-1977.