# Lathan v. Brinegar

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · September 27, 1974 · 506 F.2d 677

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8895178

## Case

- **Full name:** Roosevelt LATHAN and Pearline Lathan, Citizens Against Freeways, Intervenor-Plaintiffs-Appellants v. Claude S. BRINEGAR, Secretary of the United States Department of Transportation, Defendants-Appellees Roosevelt LATHAN and Pearline Lathan v. Claude S. BRINEGAR, Secretary of the United States Department of Transportation, Washington State Highway Commission
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** September 27, 1974
- **Citations:** 506 F.2d 677; 7 ERC 1048
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Traskwhomwrightchoygoodwin
- **Judges:** Browning, Chambers, Choy, Compliance, Duniway, Ely, Generally, Goodwin, Has, Hufstedler, Koelsch, Merrill, Portion, Remand, Sneed, That, Trask, Wallace, Whom, Wright
- **Cited by:** 160 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8895178

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that state highway departments receiving federal assistance for highway planning, design and construction must comply with 23 U.S.C. § 101 et seq., as well as pertinent provisions in the Code of Federal Regulations
- stating that the "without observance of procedure" standard applies when a party claims that an environmental impact statement fails to comply with the requirements of NEPA
- finding “the two essential elements of laches — lack of diligence by plaintiff and injurious reliance thereon by de fendant”
- emphasizing that NEPA is a procedural statute and that the adequacy of an EIS depends on whether it was prepared in observance of proper procedures

## Opinion text

TRASK, Circuit Judge, with whom Circuit Judges WRIGHT, CHOY and GOODWIN join
(specially concurring):
Part 2 of the opinion discusses “Public Hearings” that have been held, including a design hearing by the Washington State Department of Highways on June 2-6, 1970. In part 2c the opinion acknowledges the contentions of the State Defendants-Appellants that this hearing did comply with section 128(a) as *695 amended, and that such hearing together with other meetings held by the Washington State Department of Highways with interested persons and groups constitutes substantial compliance with section 128(a) so that no further hearing should be required.
While the opinion leaves the question of the need for a further hearing to the District Court to consider on remand, it “suggests” that the District Court may feel “that the case can and should be disposed of more expeditiously by requiring a new hearing or opportunity for a hearing” of the type the opinion has discussed.
Lest the District Court might consider this language to constitute an admonition which would interfere with its freedom of decision, it should be pointed out that the record of the June 2-6, 1970, hearings has never been before us. None of us has examined it. No basis exists therefore upon which we can circumscribe the trial court’s freedom of judgment in assessing the sufficiency of that record. The suggested admonition is predicated upon the fact that an appeal might be taken unless a new hearing is held. An appeal might also be taken if a new hearing is held. The evaluation of the sufficiency of the record to comply with the statutory requirements and regulations is for the trial court in the first instance. It should be exercised as in any other case without advice from this court as to the manner in which the decision should be made upon evidence we know nothing about.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8895178. Public record. Not legal advice.