Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
CAROLINA ACTION, Appellant, v. William E. SIMON, Secretary of the Treasury of the United States, et al., Appellees, 1975 — 522 F.2d 295 · caselaw · US
General
CAROLINA ACTION, Appellant, v. William E. SIMON, Secretary of the Treasury of the United States, et al., Appellees
522 F.2d 295·United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·1975
Before ALDRICH, Senior Circuit Judge, and CRAVEN and WIDENER, Circuit Judges.
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
CAROLINA ACTION, Appellant, v. William E. SIMON, Secretary of the Treasury of the United States, et al., Appellees.
No. 75-1253.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Argued April 8, 1975.
Decided June 25, 1975.
Thomas F. Loflin, III, Durham, N. C. (Ann F. Loflin, Loflin & Loflin, Durham, N. C., on brief), for appellant.
Rufus L. Edmisten, Atty. Gen., and William H. Guy, Associate Atty., N. C. Dept, of Justice, on brief for amicus curiae Atty. Gen. of N. C.
John T. Morrisey, Sr., Raleigh, N. C., and Charles Ronald Aycock, Raleigh, on brief for amicus curiae N. C. Ass’n of County Commissioners.
Edward R. Slaughter, Jr., and Jay T. Swett, McGuire, Woods & Battle, Charlottesville, Va., on brief for amicus curiae National Ass’n of Counties.
Michael A. McCord, Atty., U. S. Dept, of Justice (Wallace H. Johnson, Asst. Atty. Gen., N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., U. S. Atty., Ronald V. Shearin, Asst. U. S. Atty., Raymond N. Zagone, Atty., U. S. Dept, of Justice, on brief), for appellee William E. Simon.
W. I. Thornton, Jr., City Atty. (Rufus C. Boutwell, Jr., Douglas A. Johnston, Asst. City Attys., on brief), for appellee City of Durham.
Robert D. Holleman, Durham, N. C., for appellee County of Durham.
Before ALDRICH, Senior Circuit Judge, and CRAVEN and WIDENER, Circuit Judges.
First Circuit, Sitting by Designation.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM:']
PER CURIAM:'
The question on appeal is whether disbursement by the Secretary of the Treasury of revenue sharing funds under the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972, 31 U.S.C. § 1221 et seq., is major federal action substantially affecting the environment so as to require preparation of an environmental impact statement. The question arises in the context of the proposed new County Judicial Building and new City Hall in Durham, North Carolina.
The district court dismissed the action brought by the appellant for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Rule 12(b)(6), Fed.R.Civ.P. For the reasons stated by Judge Gordon in an excellent memorandum opinion we hold that the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq., does not apply to a project in which the only federal participation is the distribution of revenue sharing funds to aid local communities in financing the project. The decision below will be
Affirmed.