subscribe to this page
COMMITTEE FOR A BETTER NORTH PHILADELPHIA and TYRONE REED, Plaintiffs, v. SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, ROBERT J. THOMPSON, LEWIS F. GOULD, JAMES C. McHUGH, FRANKLIN C. WOOD, RICHARD E. KURTZ, BRIAN W. CLYMER, THOMAS M. HAYWARD, FRANK W. JENKINS, MARY C. HARRIS and H. PATRICK SWYGERT, Defendants
Civil Action No. 88-1275
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10895
August 9, 1990, Decided
August 14, 1990, Filed
COUNSEL: [*1]
Deborah Harris, Esq., Irv Acklesberg, Esq., COMMUNITY LEGAL SERVICES, INC., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
ALL DEFTS EXCEPT ROBERT J. THOMPSON, David P. Bruton, Esq., Michael Kubacki, Esq., DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
JUDGES: Daniel H. Huyett, 3rd, United States District Judge.
OPINION BY: HUYETT
OPINION: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
In this civil action, plaintiffs n1 allege that the means utilized by defendants n2 to allocate federal subsidies received pursuant to the Urban Mass Transportation Act, 49 U.S.C. §§ 1601-13, has a discriminatory impact upon the black community of Philadelphia in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d. SEPTA has filed a motion for summary judgment, and oral argument was held on October 3, 1989. At the time of oral argument, it appeared that the parties wished to discuss an amicable resolution of this dispute. Therefore, I stayed disposition of SEPTA's motion for summary judgment pending the outcome of settlement negotiations. After several months, the parties advised that negotiations had proved unfruitful and sought disposition of the instant motion. For the reasons stated below, I will now grant SEPTA's motion for summary judgment. [*2]
Civil Action No. 88-1275
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10895
August 9, 1990, Decided
August 14, 1990, Filed
COUNSEL: [*1]
Deborah Harris, Esq., Irv Acklesberg, Esq., COMMUNITY LEGAL SERVICES, INC., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
ALL DEFTS EXCEPT ROBERT J. THOMPSON, David P. Bruton, Esq., Michael Kubacki, Esq., DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
JUDGES: Daniel H. Huyett, 3rd, United States District Judge.
OPINION BY: HUYETT
OPINION: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
In this civil action, plaintiffs n1 allege that the means utilized by defendants n2 to allocate federal subsidies received pursuant to the Urban Mass Transportation Act, 49 U.S.C. §§ 1601-13, has a discriminatory impact upon the black community of Philadelphia in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d. SEPTA has filed a motion for summary judgment, and oral argument was held on October 3, 1989. At the time of oral argument, it appeared that the parties wished to discuss an amicable resolution of this dispute. Therefore, I stayed disposition of SEPTA's motion for summary judgment pending the outcome of settlement negotiations. After several months, the parties advised that negotiations had proved unfruitful and sought disposition of the instant motion. For the reasons stated below, I will now grant SEPTA's motion for summary judgment. [*2]
tagged EJ SEPTA city_planning law planning_law social_equity social_justice transportation_law
by jn
...and 5 other people
...on 31-JAN-07
COMMITTEE FOR A BETTER NORTH PHILADELPHIA and TYRONE REED, Appellants v. SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, ROBERT J. THOMPSON, LEWIS F. GOULD, JAMES C. McHUGH, FRANKLIN C. WOOD, RICHARD E. KURTZ, BRIAN W. CLYMER, THOMAS M. HAYWARD, FRANK W. JENKINS, JUDITH E. HARRIS, MARY C. HARRIS, H. PATRICK SWYGERT
No. 90-1656
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
935 F.2d 1280; 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 12485
February 1, 1991, Argued
May 29, 1991, Filed
NOTICE:
[*1]
RULES OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS MAY LIMIT CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS. PLEASE REFER TO THE RULES OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THIS CIRCUIT.
PRIOR HISTORY:
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA; (D.C. Civil No. 88-01275); District Judge: Hon. Daniel H. Huyett, 3rd.
JUDGES: Sloviter, Chief Judge, Nygaard, Circuit Judge, and Barry, District Judge. *
* Honorable Maryanne Trump Barry, United States District Judge for the District of New Jersey, sitting by designation.
OPINION: Affirmed
No. 90-1656
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
935 F.2d 1280; 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 12485
February 1, 1991, Argued
May 29, 1991, Filed
NOTICE:
[*1]
RULES OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS MAY LIMIT CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS. PLEASE REFER TO THE RULES OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THIS CIRCUIT.
PRIOR HISTORY:
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA; (D.C. Civil No. 88-01275); District Judge: Hon. Daniel H. Huyett, 3rd.
JUDGES: Sloviter, Chief Judge, Nygaard, Circuit Judge, and Barry, District Judge. *
* Honorable Maryanne Trump Barry, United States District Judge for the District of New Jersey, sitting by designation.
OPINION: Affirmed
tagged EJ SEPTA city_planning law planning_law social_equity social_justice transportation_law
by jn
...on 31-JAN-07
A 'consensus' eminent-domain plan in N.J.
Critics said the compromise proposal would not go far enough to curtail abuse. Builders and municipalities lauded the bill, which a sponsor expects will pass.
By Elisa Ung
Inquirer Trenton Bureau
TRENTON - After a four-month review of how the most densely populated state allows the seizure of land for private redevelopment, key Democratic lawmakers are working on legislation that would tighten the criteria for exercising eminent domain and require more public notification. Builders and the New Jersey State League of Municipalities cheered the proposal, while property owners, Republicans, and the state's public advocate said it did not go far enough to curb eminent-domain abuse. "The real question is: What will this do to stop the abuse taking place now? And the answer is: Nothing," said Bill Potter, a Princeton lawyer who heads the Coalition Against Eminent Domain Abuse. ...
Critics said the compromise proposal would not go far enough to curtail abuse. Builders and municipalities lauded the bill, which a sponsor expects will pass.
By Elisa Ung
Inquirer Trenton Bureau
TRENTON - After a four-month review of how the most densely populated state allows the seizure of land for private redevelopment, key Democratic lawmakers are working on legislation that would tighten the criteria for exercising eminent domain and require more public notification. Builders and the New Jersey State League of Municipalities cheered the proposal, while property owners, Republicans, and the state's public advocate said it did not go far enough to curb eminent-domain abuse. "The real question is: What will this do to stop the abuse taking place now? And the answer is: Nothing," said Bill Potter, a Princeton lawyer who heads the Coalition Against Eminent Domain Abuse. ...