Home/D.C. Circuit/San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the United States of America

San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the United States of America

760 F.2d 1320, 245 U.S. App. D.C. 296, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 31610
CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
DecidedMay 1, 1985
Docket84-1410
StatusPublished
Cited by34 cases

This text of 760 F.2d 1320 (San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the United States of America) 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
San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the United States of America, 760 F.2d 1320, 245 U.S. App. D.C. 296, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 31610 (D.C. Cir. 1985).

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of petitioners’ motion for leave to file exhibits in support of the *1321 suggestion for rehearing en banc, the responses thereto, and of the suggestion for rehearing en banc, it is

ORDERED, by the Court en banc, that the motion for leave to file exhibits is granted, and it is

FURTHER ORDERED, by the Court en banc, that petitioners’ suggestion for rehearing en banc is granted in part, and it is

FURTHER ORDERED, by the Court en banc, that only Section III.B of the Court’s opinion, 751 F.2d 1287 and the corresponding part of the judgment of the Court, issued on December 31, 1984, are hereby vacated, and it is

FURTHER ORDERED, by the Court en banc, that the full power operating license remains in effect and is not stayed pending the rehearing en banc.

BORK, Circuit Judge would deny the motion for leave to file exhibits in support of the suggestion and would deny the suggestion.

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

Related

Yellowstone to Uintas Connection v. Bolling
D. Idaho, 2021
Food & Water Watch v. United States Department of Agriculture
District of Columbia, 2018
Food & Water Watch v. U.S. Dep't of Agric.
325 F. Supp. 3d 39 (D.C. Circuit, 2018)
UnitedHealthCare Ins. Co. v. Azar
316 F. Supp. 3d 339 (D.C. Circuit, 2018)
Unitedhealthcare Insurance Company v. Burwell
District of Columbia, 2018
Stand Up for California! v. United States Department of Interior
71 F. Supp. 3d 109 (District of Columbia, 2014)
Silver State Land, LLC v. Beaudreau
59 F. Supp. 3d 158 (District of Columbia, 2014)
Tindal v. McHugh
945 F. Supp. 2d 111 (District of Columbia, 2013)
Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
716 F.3d 183 (D.C. Circuit, 2013)
United Space Alliance, LLC v. Solis
824 F. Supp. 2d 68 (District of Columbia, 2011)
Oceana, Inc. v. Gutierrez
District of Columbia, 2009
County of San Miguel v. Kempthorne
587 F. Supp. 2d 64 (District of Columbia, 2008)
Ammex, Inc. v. United States
62 F. Supp. 2d 1148 (Court of International Trade, 1999)
Arizona Rehabilitation Hospital, Inc. v. Shalala
185 F.R.D. 263 (D. Arizona, 1998)
Public Citizen v. Carlin
2 F. Supp. 2d 1 (District of Columbia, 1997)
Portland Audubon Society v. The Endangered Species Committee
984 F.2d 1534 (Ninth Circuit, 1993)
Portland Audubon Society v. Endangered Species Committee
984 F.2d 1534 (Ninth Circuit, 1993)
Kent County, Delaware Levy Court v. United States Environmental Protection Agency
963 F.2d 391 (D.C. Circuit, 1992)
Commonwealth Of Massachusetts v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission
924 F.2d 311 (D.C. Circuit, 1991)
Massachusetts v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission
924 F.2d 311 (D.C. Circuit, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
760 F.2d 1320, 245 U.S. App. D.C. 296, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 31610, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/san-luis-obispo-mothers-for-peace-v-united-states-nuclear-regulatory-cadc-1985.