Brandon v. Pierce, No. 82-2019

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtBefore HOLLOWAY and LOGAN; HOLLOWAY
Citation725 F.2d 555
Parties, 14 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,185 Herbert Earl BRANDON and Iva Marie Brandon, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Samuel R. PIERCE, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, and the City of Stilwell, Oklahoma, Defendants-Appellees.
Docket NumberNo. 82-2019
Decision Date12 January 1984
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
14 practice notes
  • ATLANTIC TERM. URBAN REN. v. DEPT. OF ENV. PROT., No. 87 Civ. 4242(MEL).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • 7 February 1989
    ...its NEPA responsibilities and thereby relinquish all substantive responsibilities for preparation of the EIS. See Brandon v. Pierce, 725 F.2d 555, 560 (10th Cir. 1984) (holding that Congress intended to permit HUD to transfer NEPA responsibilities to grant applicants); Colony Fed. Sav. & Lo......
  • Northern Crawfish v. Fed. Highway Admin., No. 93-4028-SAC.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. District of Kansas
    • 1 July 1994
    ...court is persuaded that the integrity of the environmental process was not compromised by any conflict of interest. See Brandon v. Pierce, 725 F.2d 555, 563-564 (10th Cir.1984); Sierra Club, 714 F.Supp. at In sum, based upon the evidence and arguments presented, the court concludes that the......
  • Cornell Village Tower Condo. v. DEPT. OF HUD, No. 88 C 10099.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court (Northern District of Illinois)
    • 9 October 1990
    ...projects that are found to have no significant impact on the environment. See 24 C.F.R. §§ 58.16(b); 58.17(b) (1979); Brandon v. Pierce, 725 F.2d 555, 561 (10th Cir.1984).16 Sections 58.16(b) and 58.17(b) no longer contain the notice specifications for the environmental review process, but ......
  • Colo. Rail Passenger Ass'n v. Fed. Transit Admin., Civil Case No. 09–cv–01135–WJM–KMT.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. United States District Court of Colorado
    • 30 December 2011
    ...any conflict of interest on the part of Jacobs did not impermissibly compromise the NEPA process in this case. See Brandon v. Pierce, 725 F.2d 555, 564 (10th Cir.1984) (overlooking conflict of interest when agency “substantially carried out its [NEPA] duties by making the ultimate decision ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
14 cases
  • ATLANTIC TERM. URBAN REN. v. DEPT. OF ENV. PROT., No. 87 Civ. 4242(MEL).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • 7 February 1989
    ...its NEPA responsibilities and thereby relinquish all substantive responsibilities for preparation of the EIS. See Brandon v. Pierce, 725 F.2d 555, 560 (10th Cir. 1984) (holding that Congress intended to permit HUD to transfer NEPA responsibilities to grant applicants); Colony Fed. Sav. & Lo......
  • Northern Crawfish v. Fed. Highway Admin., No. 93-4028-SAC.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. District of Kansas
    • 1 July 1994
    ...court is persuaded that the integrity of the environmental process was not compromised by any conflict of interest. See Brandon v. Pierce, 725 F.2d 555, 563-564 (10th Cir.1984); Sierra Club, 714 F.Supp. at In sum, based upon the evidence and arguments presented, the court concludes that the......
  • Cornell Village Tower Condo. v. DEPT. OF HUD, No. 88 C 10099.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court (Northern District of Illinois)
    • 9 October 1990
    ...projects that are found to have no significant impact on the environment. See 24 C.F.R. §§ 58.16(b); 58.17(b) (1979); Brandon v. Pierce, 725 F.2d 555, 561 (10th Cir.1984).16 Sections 58.16(b) and 58.17(b) no longer contain the notice specifications for the environmental review process, but ......
  • Colo. Rail Passenger Ass'n v. Fed. Transit Admin., Civil Case No. 09–cv–01135–WJM–KMT.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • 30 December 2011
    ...any conflict of interest on the part of Jacobs did not impermissibly compromise the NEPA process in this case. See Brandon v. Pierce, 725 F.2d 555, 564 (10th Cir.1984) (overlooking conflict of interest when agency “substantially carried out its [NEPA] duties by making the ultimate decision ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT