Casitas Municipal Water District v. United States

556 F.3d 1329, 39 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20037, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 2942, 2009 WL 367528
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
DecidedFebruary 17, 2009
Docket2007-5153
StatusPublished
Cited by20 cases

This text of 556 F.3d 1329 (Casitas Municipal Water District v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Casitas Municipal Water District v. United States, 556 F.3d 1329, 39 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20037, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 2942, 2009 WL 367528 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

Opinions

MOORE, Circuit Judge,

with whom RADER and SCHALL, Circuit Judges, join, concurs in the denial of the petition for rehearing en banc. GAJARSA, Circuit Judge, with whom MICHEL, Chief Judge, and DYK, Circuit Judge, join, dissents from the denial of the petition for rehearing en banc. LINN, Circuit Judge, dissents.

ORDER

A combined petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc was filed by the Appellee, and a response thereto was invited by the court and filed by the Appellant. The court granted the motions of California State Water Resources Control Board, California Trout, Inc., Natural Resources Defense Council, Law Professors Robert W. Adler, et al., Defenders of Wildlife et al., Fisheries Scientists Kozmo Bates, et al., and Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District et al. for leave to file briefs as amici curiae.

The petition for rehearing was referred to the panel that heard the appeal, and thereafter the petition for rehearing en banc, response, and the amici curiae briefs were referred to the circuit judges who are authorized to request a poll whether to rehear the appeal en banc. A poll was requested, taken, and failed.

Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

[1331]*1331(1) The petition for panel rehearing is denied.

(2) The petition for rehearing en banc is denied.

(3) The mandate of the court will issue on February 24, 2009.

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

Related

Castillo v. United States
Federal Claims, 2023
Cheung v. United States
Federal Claims, 2019
Beres v. United States
Federal Claims, 2019
Menendez v. United States
Federal Claims, 2018
Lucier v. United States
Federal Claims, 2018
Wade v. United States
Federal Claims, 2018
Yee v. United States
Federal Claims, 2017
Baley v. United States
134 Fed. Cl. 619 (Federal Claims, 2017)
Klamath Irrigation v. United States
134 Fed. Cl. 619 (Federal Claims, 2017)
Gazpromneft-Aero Kyrgyzstan LLC v. United States
132 Fed. Cl. 202 (Federal Claims, 2017)
James v. United States
130 Fed. Cl. 707 (Federal Claims, 2017)
Phipps v. United States
126 Fed. Cl. 674 (Federal Claims, 2016)
Thomas v. United States
122 Fed. Cl. 53 (Federal Claims, 2015)
Old Veteran Construction, Inc. v. United States
121 Fed. Cl. 346 (Federal Claims, 2015)
Casitas Municipal Water District v. United States
556 F.3d 1329 (Federal Circuit, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
556 F.3d 1329, 39 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20037, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 2942, 2009 WL 367528, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/casitas-municipal-water-district-v-united-states-cafc-2009.