Bernadine Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency

Ninth Circuit

Bernadine Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency

123 F.3d 1322, 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7147, 97 Daily Journal DAR 11501, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 23072, 1997 WL 539236

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 4, 1997

Docket94-15768

StatusPublished

This text of 123 F.3d 1322 (Bernadine Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bernadine Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 123 F.3d 1322, 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7147, 97 Daily Journal DAR 11501, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 23072, 1997 WL 539236 (9th Cir. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

This case having been heard by the United States Supreme Court and reversed, has been remanded to this court for further proceedings in conformity with the opinion of the Supreme Court. In its Opinion, the Supreme Court indicated that upon remand, this court should consider the second prong of the two-part test from Williamson County Regional Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172, 105 S.Ct. 3108, 87 L.Ed.2d 126 (1985). Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, — U.S. —, — n.8, 117 S.Ct. 1659, 1665 n. 8, 137 L.Ed.2d 980 (1997). Because this issue was not addressed by the district court nor raised before this court, it is best considered by the district court in the first instance.

Therefore, the Opinion reported at 80 F.3d 359 (9th Cir.1996) is VACATED and this case is REMANDED to the district court for further proceedings.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

This case having been heard by the United States Supreme Court and reversed, has been remanded to this court for further proceedings in conformity with the opinion of the Supreme Court. In its Opinion, the Supreme Court indicated that upon remand, this court should consider the second prong of the two-part test from Williamson County Regional Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172, 105 S.Ct. 3108, 87 L.Ed.2d 126 (1985). Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, — U.S. —, — n.8, 117 S.Ct. 1659, 1665 n. 8, 137 L.Ed.2d 980 (1997). Because this issue was not addressed by the district court nor raised before this court, it is best considered by the district court in the first instance.

Therefore, the Opinion reported at 80 F.3d 359 (9th Cir.1996) is VACATED and this case is REMANDED to the district court for further proceedings.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 F.3d 1322, 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7147, 97 Daily Journal DAR 11501, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 23072, 1997 WL 539236, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bernadine-suitum-v-tahoe-regional-planning-agency-ca9-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack