Stop H-3 Association v. Coleman
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
533 F.2d 434 (1976)
- Written by Catherine Cotovsky, JD
Facts
Stop H-3 Association (Stop H-3) (plaintiff) and others petitioned to enjoin the United States Secretary of Transportation, the Hawaii Division Engineer for the Federal Highway Administration, and the Hawaii Department of Transportation (Agencies) (defendants) from routing interstate highway H-3 through Moanalua Valley on the island of Oahu on the grounds that Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act should have been applied. The H-3’s proposed route ran through Moanalua Valley, a scenic, privately owned area believed by many to be historically significant in Hawaiian history. Although not on the National Register, the Interior Secretary published notice in 1974 that the Valley may be eligible for National Register inclusion as a site of local significance. That same year, the Hawaii Historic Places Review Board determined that the Valley was not entitled to protection because it was only of marginal local importance. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation reviewed the H-3 project and concluded that Moanalua Valley’s cultural and historical significance warranted preservation. Nonetheless, the Secretary of Transportation concluded that Section 4(f) did not apply to the H-3 project. Stop H-3 petitioned for an injunction. The district court initially enjoined construction of the highway but ultimately agreed with the Agencies and dissolved the injunctions. Stop H-3 appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Ely, J.)
Concurrence/Dissent (Wallace, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.