Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402 (1971), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that established the basic legal framework for judicial review of the actions of administrative agencies. It also stands as a notable example of the power of litigation by grassroots 'not-in-my-backyard' and preservationist movements to block government action. The case concerned the decision by the Secretary of Transportation John A.

PropertyValue
dbpedia-owl:argueDate
  • January 11
dbpedia-owl:decideDate
  • March 2
dbpprop:abstract
  • Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402 (1971), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that established the basic legal framework for judicial review of the actions of administrative agencies. It also stands as a notable example of the power of litigation by grassroots 'not-in-my-backyard' and preservationist movements to block government action. The case concerned the decision by the Secretary of Transportation John A. Volpe to construct Interstate 40 through Overton Park in Memphis, Tennessee. During the interstate highway system's late 1950s and early 1960s building boom, public parks had been viewed as a desirable path. Building through them didn't require the federal government to use the power of eminent domain. That changed in the mid 1960s, under a federal statute commonly called Section 4(f). It required the government to demonstrate that there were no "feasible and prudent" alternatives to building through public lands. On March 3, 1971, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, upholding the "feasible and prudent" clause. In the decision, Justice Thurgood Marshall stated that Section 4(f) "is a plain and explicit bar to the use of federal funds for construction of highways through parks—only the most unusual situations are exempted. " The court recognized the place of cost, directness of route, and community disruption in highway routing, but the existence of the statute "indicates that protection of parkland was to be given paramount importance."
dbpprop:arguedate
  • January 11
dbpprop:argueyear
  • 1971 (xsd:integer)
dbpprop:citation
  • 91 S. Ct. 814; 28 L. Ed. 2d 136; 1971 U.S. LEXIS 96
dbpprop:concurrence
  • Black
dbpprop:decidedate
  • March 2
dbpprop:decideyear
  • 1971 (xsd:integer)
dbpprop:fullname
dbpprop:hasPhotoCollection
dbpprop:holding
  • The Secretary of Transportation can only approve use of federal funds for construction of a highway in a public park if no (a) feasible and prudent alternative exists, and (b) after undertaking all possible planning to minimize harm.
dbpprop:joinconcurrence
  • Brennan
dbpprop:joinmajority
  • Burger, Harlan, Stewart, White, Blackmun (who filed a separate statement)
dbpprop:lawsapplied
dbpprop:litigants
  • Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe
dbpprop:majority
  • Marshall
dbpprop:notparticipating
  • Douglas
dbpprop:prior
  • ''Summary judgment for defendant, injunction denied,'' 309 F. Supp. 1189
dbpprop:reference
dbpprop:scotus
  • 1970-1971
dbpprop:subsequent
  • On remand to 335 F. Supp. 873 (W.D. Tenn. 1972)
dbpprop:uspage
  • 402 (xsd:integer)
dbpprop:usvol
  • 401 (xsd:integer)
dbpprop:wikiPageUsesTemplate
rdf:type
rdfs:comment
  • Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402 (1971), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that established the basic legal framework for judicial review of the actions of administrative agencies. It also stands as a notable example of the power of litigation by grassroots 'not-in-my-backyard' and preservationist movements to block government action. The case concerned the decision by the Secretary of Transportation John A.
rdfs:label
  • Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe
owl:sameAs
skos:subject
foaf:name
  • Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, et al. v. Volpe, Secretary of Transportation, et al.
foaf:page
is dbpprop:redirect of
is owl:sameAs of