Jump to Navigation
Jump to Content

Pizitz, Inc. v. Volpe

Citation: 2 ELR 20378
No. No. 3595-N, 4 ERC 1195/(M.D. Ala., 05/01/1972)

Plaintiff business proprietors seek to enjoin further construction of parkway overpasses for noncompliance with NEPA. The court characterizes the case as "spurious," since plaintiffs' concerns are not environmental but relate to a threatened loss of business. NEPA creates procedural remedies, not substantive rights, and the court may not substitute its judgment on the merits of the undertaking for that of defendant highway officials. Held, where the environmental impact statement fully evaluated environmental effects and gave attention to problems and objections, defendants had complied substantially with the procedural requirements of the Act, and are entitled to summary judgment. Costs to plaintiffs.

Counsel for Plaintiffs
Schrader & Schwenn
Suite 400
State National Bank Building
Huntsville, Alabama 35804

Counsel for Federal Defendants
Ira DeMent, U.S. Attorney
Kenneth E. Vines, Assistant U.S. Attorney
P.O. Box 197
Montgomery, Alabama 36104

Counsel for State Defendants
Lucian L. Smith, Jr.
Alabama State Highway Department
11 South Union Street
Montgomery, Alabama 36104