ELR Citation: ELR 20116
No(s). 89-1889 (5th Cir. Oct 25, 1990)

The court holds that a county and several municipalities in Texas through which construction of a state highway is proposed do not have standing to seek a declaratory judgment on the sufficiency of the final environmental impact statement (EIS) for the project. The court holds that although plaintiffs have demonstrated a stake, opposed by a homeowners association, in the outcome of the case, the interests of plaintiffs and defendant are not legally adverse concerning the only substantive issue in the case: defendant's potential claim over the sufficiency of the EIS. Defendant could not have sued plaintiffs over the sufficiency of the EIS, because plaintiffs had no legal responsibility for its sufficiency. For the same reason, plaintiffs could not have intervened as of right in any suit that defendant brought against those having responsibility for the EIS' sufficiency.

[A previous decision in this litigation is published at 20 ELR 20489.]

Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellees
R. Matthew Molash
Hughes & Luce
2800 Momentum Pl., 1717 Main St., Dallas TX 75201
(214) 939-5500

Counsel for Defendant-Appellant
David Frederick
2103 Rio Grande, Austin TX 78705
(512) 478-1968

Before CLARK, Chief Judge, REAVLEY and KING, Circuit Judges.