.
“whan
INET rrins
is
reached, wher
22 lLions neve teen invested, tne momentun
“i oon tne sits if tne [project], not on ths
sige oF the ratliz
The momentum is not only
zZ2nerarea =. tne
2 2zg2ney
zlephant.
issire
to
salvage an investment.
wants 72 ca the architect of a wnite
Plier R22ttor Leveloimen: Co. v.
International Union Of Electrical,
‘Reiicz and Vaochine Vorxers, 367 U.S.
B.
396, 417 (1961){dissenting opinion).
Ine Failures Te Zomoly With NEPA And The Trusteeship Agreement
umetion - Some NEPA cases rely on the traditional
4
i)
"
4
ay
the
ra
a
oO
wD
oO
ul
yy
|
4
Berzuires Intunctzive Peltier Under The Traditional Standards For
Stimiards Tor infunttive relief.
Defarnse Tiuncil v.
See e.g., Natural Resources
Morton, 337 F.Supp. 165 (D.D.C. 1971). The
vracgitionai steniersi nes four interrelated factors all of which
in girtia une erioriet: sf the issuance of an injunction granting
Tne velie? sousnt oy plsintiffs here.
FEDERAL FRATTICE,
L.
a.
3 25.74 (2nd ed.
See generally 7 MOORE,
1971).
aA ShowingByThe Plaintiff Of Irrevarable Injury
12e Invumeltitn DBcoes
Nst
Issue
-
= DliainiiflS asxinz ean injunction becauss
co? the derenaant's violation of a statute
13 net ratuires swt snow that otherwise
visor morvis will sat in forthwith; all
tne. ‘irerecareaclta
23 Inf rt unmiess en
injury" means
infunction is
in this context
granted,
Tae plaincit? will suffer harn which
zannot se rerairei.
At least that is
encuzn wheres, £2 mere, the only consezuence
t7 en ivdunmation is that the defendant
mMusv
Pract
2 compliance with
the
statute
nion he cuzh=t ts nave done before.
To
teceier Corr.
=Tt,
z
Ti
2.taT
Tht
ov.
Fitctiin,
Tarsii
Zein
ff
if
2°20
ov. cecrle of Sisini.
360 F.2d 692, 598 (2nd.
severe
inreparabls
Prom Sihnini
atoil
harm
is
is
cuilaicg
1956)
immediate
irrererstle harm
A return to their atoll, however, threatens
Tic Elriinians «itn irrecarabdle harm to their health.
Toot.
Cir.
f2rieaream without
the
environmental
Continuation
stud: mandated