Legal Opinion
Crosby v. Young
District Court, E.D. Michigan
Decided April 24, 1981No. Civ. A. 81-70844PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
FEIKENS, Chief Judge.
This case is before me for the resolution of three claims brought pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (“NEPA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 et seq. First, plaintiffs claim that Detroit and Hamtramck failed to consider alternatives to the proposed Central Industrial Park (“CIP”), contrary to the statutory requirements of Section 4332(2)(C)(iii). Next, it is plaintiffs’ contention that the Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) authorized the release of Section 108 loan guarantee funds before the final environmental impact statement (“EIS”)…
2Cases cited47 opinions
- Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Camp v. PittsSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Kleppe v. Sierra ClubSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Rogers C. B. Morton, in His Official Capacity as Secretary of the Department of InteriorCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1972
- Asarco, Inc. v. U. S. Environmental Protection AgencyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1980
42 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. WinterCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2008
- Citizens Committee Against Interstate Route 675 v. LewisDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio · 1982
- Center for Biological Diversity v. BrysonDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2013
- Flagstaff Medical Center, Inc. v. SullivanDistrict Court, D. Arizona · 1991
- Coalition of Concerned Citizens Against I-670 v. DamianDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio · 1984
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.