# South East Lake View Neighbors v. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Sheldon Baskin, Intervening

> Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · July 28, 1982 · 685 F.2d 1027

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9469583

## Case

- **Full name:** SOUTH EAST LAKE VIEW NEIGHBORS, Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees, Sheldon Baskin, Et Al., Intervening Defendants-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
- **Decided:** July 28, 1982
- **Citations:** 685 F.2d 1027; 13 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20047; 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 17063
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Cudahy
- **Judges:** Wood, Cudahy, Dumbauld
- **Cited by:** 49 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/9469583

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting the “distressing” implication of the South East Lake View case that “environmental considerations ... can be effectively ignored when [efforts to complete the project] proceed so much more rapidly than the litigation challenging the project”

## Opinion text

CUDAHY, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I concur in both the result reached by Judge Wood and in his analysis, but I write *1041 separately to emphasize what seem to me to be the distressing implications of our decision. Our opinion notes the developers’ statement in their petition to intervene that the building could not be constructed without federal assistance. But this statement, made soon after the lawsuit began, “is of little relevance to their present financial ability to withstand the withdrawal of federal assistance.” Ante, at 1038. Thus, when building goes forward apace, absent preliminary injunctive relief and without a seasonable opportunity for consideration of the objections on the merits, the plaintiffs eventually lose their standing to be heard. This sort of outcome by presentation of a fait accompli is not calculated to nurture respect for procedures and other considerations mandated by law. We shall probably never know whether this housing project meets the applicable site and neighborhood standards or what its full environmental impact may be.
It is, of course, possible that the plaintiffs’ objections are quite unmeritorious, but we can hardly assume that. And given such precedents as United States v. SCRAP, 412 U.S. 669 , 93 S.Ct. 2405 , 37 L.Ed.2d 254 (1973), the plaintiffs ought not to have lost their day in court. I think the result we reach here underscores the significance of the irreparable harm criterion in evaluating the case for preliminary relief. And, because I believe that environmental considerations are of fundamental importance, I think it unfortunate that they can be effectively ignored when financing and building proceed so much more rapidly than the litigation challenging the project.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9469583. Public record. Not legal advice.