Martha M. Menzel, and Barbara G. Racine v. County Utilities Corporation

Fourth Circuit

Martha M. Menzel, and Barbara G. Racine v. County Utilities Corporation

718 F.2d 120, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 16453

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 28, 1983

Docket82-1677

StatusPublished

This text of 718 F.2d 120 (Martha M. Menzel, and Barbara G. Racine v. County Utilities Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Martha M. Menzel, and Barbara G. Racine v. County Utilities Corporation, 718 F.2d 120, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 16453 (4th Cir. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

718 F.2d 120

Martha M. MENZEL, et al., Appellants,
and
Barbara G. Racine, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
COUNTY UTILITIES CORPORATION, Appellee.

No. 82-1677.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Sept. 28, 1983.

ORDER

Upon consideration of the appellee's petition for rehearing, 712 F.2d 91, the appellant's responses, and other related submissions, the court observes that by their several submissions, including a motion by appellant to supplement the record, the parties have sought to raise matters for first instance consideration by this court that have not been presented to the district court, were not presented in the briefs of the parties in their original briefs on this appeal, and that may, if relevant, be presented to the district court on the remand previously ordered by this court. In particular the court observes that the appellee has sought to have this court consider the effect of 40 C.F.R. Sec. 122.5, Virginia regulation No. 6, Sec. 6.20, and 5 U.S.C. Sec. 558(c) upon the continuation in effect of the NPDES permit centrally in issue in this case.

The court expressly declines to address these matters, noting that this is without prejudice to their consideration upon remand, to the extent they may then be shown to have relevance to the issues remanded for further consideration.

It is therefore ADJUDGED and ORDERED that the appellee's petition for rehearing is DENIED; the appellant's motion to supplement the record is DENIED; and the appellant's motion for an award of costs and attorneys' fees incurred in responding to appellee's petition for rehearing is DENIED, but without prejudice to its reconsideration upon final determination of this action.

Entered at the direction of Circuit Judge PHILLIPS with the concurrence of Circuit Judge HALL and Senior Circuit Judge BUTZNER.

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

718 F.2d 120

Martha M. MENZEL, et al., Appellants,
and
Barbara G. Racine, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
COUNTY UTILITIES CORPORATION, Appellee.

No. 82-1677.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Sept. 28, 1983.

ORDER

Upon consideration of the appellee's petition for rehearing, 712 F.2d 91, the appellant's responses, and other related submissions, the court observes that by their several submissions, including a motion by appellant to supplement the record, the parties have sought to raise matters for first instance consideration by this court that have not been presented to the district court, were not presented in the briefs of the parties in their original briefs on this appeal, and that may, if relevant, be presented to the district court on the remand previously ordered by this court. In particular the court observes that the appellee has sought to have this court consider the effect of 40 C.F.R. Sec. 122.5, Virginia regulation No. 6, Sec. 6.20, and 5 U.S.C. Sec. 558(c) upon the continuation in effect of the NPDES permit centrally in issue in this case.

The court expressly declines to address these matters, noting that this is without prejudice to their consideration upon remand, to the extent they may then be shown to have relevance to the issues remanded for further consideration.

It is therefore ADJUDGED and ORDERED that the appellee's petition for rehearing is DENIED; the appellant's motion to supplement the record is DENIED; and the appellant's motion for an award of costs and attorneys' fees incurred in responding to appellee's petition for rehearing is DENIED, but without prejudice to its reconsideration upon final determination of this action.

Entered at the direction of Circuit Judge PHILLIPS with the concurrence of Circuit Judge HALL and Senior Circuit Judge BUTZNER.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

718 F.2d 120, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 16453, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martha-m-menzel-and-barbara-g-racine-v-county-utilities-corporation-ca4-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack