MURILLO

v.

CRAVEN, WARDEN

Citator

Cited By

• Sierra Club v. Hickel, 433 F.2d 24 (9th Cir. 1970)
  …d or aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute, is entitled to judicial review thereof.” 5 U.S.C. § 702. . Davis, supra at 466. See also South Hill Neighborhood Ass’n v. Romney, 421 F. 2d 454 (6th Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 1025, 90 S.Ct. 1261, 25 L.Ed.2d 534 (1970). . “Aggrieved” is defined as “Having suffered loss or injury; damnified; injured.” Black’s Law Dictionary (4th ed. 1968). . To the extent to which Citizens Committee for Hudson Valley v. Volpe, indicates that…
• Watch (Waterbury Action TO Conserve OUR Heritage Incorporated) v. Harris, 603 F.2d 310 (2d Cir. 1979)
  …sections 470i to 470n of this title a reasonable opportunity to comment with regard to such undertaking. 16 U.S.C. § 470f (1970). . The principal cases are South Hill Neighborhood Ass’n v. Romney, 421 F. 2d 454, 462 (6th Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 1025, 90 S.Ct. 1261, 25 L.Ed.2d 534 (1970); and Kent County Council for Historic Preservation v. Romney, 304 F.Supp. 885, 888 (W.D.Mich.1969). Subsequent cases invoking what may be called the “cut-off” principle have simply followed these cases. Hart v.…
• Morris Cnty. Tr. FOR Historic Pres. v. Pierce, 714 F.2d 271 (3d Cir. 1983)
  …plan and any major amendatory to the plan which requires HUD approval. See Hart v. Denver Urban Renewal Authority, 551 F. 2d 1178, 1180 (10th Cir.1977); South Hill Neighborhood Association v. Romney, 421 F. 2d 454, 462 (6th Cir.1969); cert. denied, 397 U.S. 1025, 90 S.Ct. 1261, 25 L.Ed.2d 534 (1970), San Francisco Tomorrow v. Romney, 472 F. 2d 1021, 1025 (9th Cir.1973); Sworob v. Harris, 451 F.Supp. 96, 106 (E.D.Pa.1978). HUD argues that its failure to undertake an historic resource review with regard to th…