Detroit/wayne County Port Authority v. Interstate Commerce Commission United States of America, Canadian National Railway Company, Intervenors

25 F.3d 1115, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 27098
CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
DecidedJune 2, 1994
Docket94-1068
StatusUnpublished

This text of 25 F.3d 1115 (Detroit/wayne County Port Authority v. Interstate Commerce Commission United States of America, Canadian National Railway Company, Intervenors) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Detroit/wayne County Port Authority v. Interstate Commerce Commission United States of America, Canadian National Railway Company, Intervenors, 25 F.3d 1115, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 27098 (D.C. Cir. 1994).

Opinion

25 F.3d 1115

306 U.S.App.D.C. 409

NOTICE: D.C. Circuit Local Rule 11(c) states that unpublished orders, judgments, and explanatory memoranda may not be cited as precedents, but counsel may refer to unpublished dispositions when the binding or preclusive effect of the disposition, rather than its quality as precedent, is relevant.
DETROIT/WAYNE COUNTY PORT AUTHORITY, Petitioner,
v.
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION; United States of America, Respondents,
Canadian National Railway Company, et al., Intervenors.

No. 94-1068.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

June 2, 1994.

Before: EDWARDS, WILLIAMS and SENTELLE, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the motion for leave to intervene; the oppositions thereto; and the response to the court's order to show cause filed May 6, 1994, it is

ORDERED that the order to show cause be discharged. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for leave to intervene be denied. Movant does not assert that it has Article III standing as required by City of Cleveland, Ohio v. NRC, 17 F.3d 1515, 1517 (D.C.Cir.1994) (per curiam) (to intervene on review of an agency order, applicant must demonstrate that it has met the standing requirements that Article III imposes on the parties). It is

FURTHER ORDERED that Windsor Harbour Commission's request, in the alternative, to proceed as an amicus curiae be granted. The amicus is cautioned to avoid repeating petitioner's presentation and to concentrate on relevant points not adequately developed in petitioner's brief. See D.C.Cir.Rule 29.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
25 F.3d 1115, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 27098, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/detroitwayne-county-port-authority-v-interstate-co-cadc-1994.