People of State of California v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
The People of the State of California Ex Rel, John Van De Kamp, Attorney General of the State of California v. The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, a Separate Legal Entity Created by Bi-State Compact, Tahoe Shorezone Representation, a Nevada Corporation, Intervenor-Appellant
Opinion
775 F.2d 998
The PEOPLE OF the STATE OF CALIFORNIA ex rel, John VAN DE KAMP, Attorney General of the State of California, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. The TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY, a separate legal entity created by Bi-State Compact, Defendant-Appellant, Tahoe Shorezone Representation, a Nevada corporation, Intervenor-Appellant.
No. 84-2450.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted May 15, 1985. Decided July 22, 1985. As Amended Oct. 31, 1985.
1
John K. Van de Kamp, Atty. Gen., N. Gregory Taylor, Asst. Atty. Gen., Richard M. Skinner, Deputy Atty. Gen., Sacramento, Cal., E. Clement Shute, Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger, San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.
2
William T. Chidlaw, Law Offices of William T. Chidlaw, Sacramento, Cal., for intervenor-appellant.
3
Prior Report: 766 F.2d 1319 (9th Cir.1985).
4
Before ANDERSON AND CANBY, Circuit Judges and NIELSEN, * District Judge.
ORDER 5
The panel orders the following amendment to its opinion in this case, filed July 22, 1985:
6
Replace the language at page 9, lines 16-18, which states:
7
The proposed TRPA Regional Plan will require the installation of best management practices on all shorezone property.
8
with the following:
9
TRPA's goals include ultimately putting best management practices in place for all land in the Lake Tahoe region.
10
The petition for rehearing is denied.
* The Honorable Leland C. Nielsen, United States District Judge for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 7 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.