ShareThis Page
Home

Appeals court dismisses save-the-Igloo lawsuit

| Saturday, April 28, 2012, 8:33 a.m.

The Civic Arena's demolition undermined a preservation group's appeal of a judge's order allowing the structure to be torn down, a federal appeals court ruled Friday.

"It's obvious that the demolition of the arena has rendered this appeal moot," a three-judge panel said in an order dismissing the case.

Preservation Pittsburgh sued Allegheny County, Pittsburgh, the city-county Sports & Exhibition Authority, Federal Highway Administration and several officials with each body in an attempt to save the arena. U.S. District Judge David Cercone ruled in September that because no federal agency or funding was involved in the demolition, he lacked jurisdiction to halt it.

A two-judge panel of the 3rd U.S. District Court of Appeals subsequently denied the group's request for an emergency injunction, and the authority's contractor started the demolition.

Preservation Pittsburgh argued that its lawsuit should still move forward on the grounds that, even with the Igloo almost gone, development of the 28-acre site would affect several other historic buildings in the area including two churches and two schools.

The three-judge panel said those claims are "highly speculative" and not enough to keep the lawsuit alive.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me