Coalition of Concerned Citizens Against I-670 v. Damian

608 F. Supp. 110 (1984)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Coalition of Concerned Citizens Against I-670 v. Damian

United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
608 F. Supp. 110 (1984)

  • Written by Robert Cane, JD

Facts

The Coalition of Concerned Citizens Against I-670 (the coalition) (plaintiff) opposed the location of a project extending Interstate 670 (I-670). The project was planned to cut through neighborhoods in downtown Columbus, Ohio, with high populations of racial minorities. Seventy-five percent of the 355 persons to be displaced by the construction were racial minorities. Government officials created the Ohio Action Plan as required by federal regulation. The action plan required that the public be made aware of project proposals and be presented an opportunity to comment on modifications or alternatives. The Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission (MORPC) (defendant) was central to the planning process. The MORPC included the Citizens’ Advisory Committee (CAC) in the planning process to satisfy these requirements. The CAC was to provide input on behalf of the local community, but the group mostly consisted of members from business and governmental organizations and not anyone who represented the interests of the affected neighborhoods. Coalition members offered an alternative to the proposed route for the extension of I-670. The Columbus city council funded a restudy of transportation options in the region in which the alternative solution proposed by coalition members was considered and ultimately rejected. The government agencies involved also considered alternative locations for the highway extension. The main alternative location would have had a substantially greater impact on racial minorities. The coalition filed an action against the MORPC, the City of Columbus, the State of Ohio, and the federal government (defendants) for declaratory and injunctive relief regarding the construction of the I-670 extension. The coalition alleged a lack of public involvement in the planning process and a failure to consider the disparate impact on minorities.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Kinneary, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership