# John Boyd v. James S. Roland

> Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · June 27, 1986 · 789 F.2d 347

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9474772

## Case

- **Full name:** John BOYD, Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. James S. ROLAND, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- **Decided:** June 27, 1986
- **Citations:** 789 F.2d 347; 16 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20860; 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 31036
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing
- **Judges:** Gee, Rubin, Davis
- **Cited by:** 5 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/9474772

## Opinion text

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
Boyd, in his application for rehearing, calls our attention to the fact that the retirement home has been cleared away but construction had not commenced on this site at the time the hearing was held in the district court. Neither had the HUD loan been finally closed. Consequently, Boyd may well be correct that HUD could have declined to close the loan at the time of the district court hearing. The district court *350 made no finding on this fact and we are unable to say that the district court could properly have denied the claim for injunction on the ground of mootness.
The only ground on which the district court clearly bottomed its denial of injunc-tive relief was its interpretation of the National Historic Preservation Act. Because we have concluded that the district court’s interpretation of that statute is erroneous, we vacate the order denying a preliminary injunction. By doing so, we do not imply that an injunction should now be ordered. To the contrary, at argument before this panel counsel for Boyd conceded that during the pendency of the appeal construction on the project had progressed substantially and Boyd did not seek an order requiring destruction of that construction. Since that time, construction has most certainly progressed further which makes denial of injunctive relief more compelling.
Except as stated above, the application for rehearing is DENIED.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9474772. Public record. Not legal advice.