CONCERNED CITIZENS OF BUSHKILL TOWNSHIP, by its Trustee ad litem, Richard King, Bushkill Anglers Chapter, Trout Unlimited, by its Trustee ad litem, Barry Fehnel, Linda Kortz, Laurence Jarrett, Joseph Pail, Milton Kelchner, William Morman and Frank Nikles,
v.
Douglas COSTLE, as Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, and Jack Schramm, Regional Administrator of Region III, Environmental Protection Agency, Bushkill-Lower Lehigh Joint Sewer Authority, Defendant-Intervenor.
PLAINFIELD TOWNSHIP TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION, Sheridan King, Michler Warner, Harold Coleman, and Joseph Dorner,
v.
Douglas COSTLE, as Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, and Jack Schramm, Regional Administrator of Region III, Environmental Protection Agency, Bushkill-Lower Lehigh Joint Sewer Authority, Defendant-Intervenor,
Bushkill-Lower Lehigh Joint Sewer Authority, Defendant-Intervenor, Appellant.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
Argued December 13, 1978.
Decided January 9, 1979.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Charles S. Smith, Easton, Pa., David Sive, Winer, Neuberger & Sive, New York City, for appellant.
George J. Miller, Dechert Price & Rhoads, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellees Concerned Citizens of Bushkill Township, et al.
Gary Neil Asteak, Easton, Pa., for appellees Plainfield Township Taxpayers Ass'n, et al.
James W. Moorman, Asst. Atty. Gen., Washington, D. C., Robert N. DeLuca, U. S. Atty., and Robert S. Forster, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Philadelphia, Pa., Jacques B. Gelin, and Robert L. Klarquist, Attys., U. S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., and R. Brent Alderfer, Dechert Price & Rhoads, Philadelphia, Pa., for Federal appellees; Gerald H. Yamada, Atty., Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C., of counsel.
Joseph M. Reibman, Reibman & Reibman, Easton, Pa., for Township of Bushkill, amicus curiae.
Before GIBBONS, VAN DUSEN and ROSENN, Circuit Judges.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
OPINION OF THE COURT
VAN DUSEN, Circuit Judge.
This controversy depends on the power of a district court to grant a continuance of an evidentiary hearing on an application for preliminary injunctive relief,1 where an administrative agency has requested time to reconsider its ruling challenged in the case, and on the propriety of using such a power in the situation presented by this record. The above appeal challenges a March...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting Sign on now to see your case. Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
Updated daily.
Uncompromising quality.
Complete, Accurate, Current.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full
text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the
full text of the citing case.
