Opinion · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COU. v. U.S.E.P.A., 496 F.2d 1196 (9th Cir. 1974)

Nat. Res. Def. COUNCIL, INC., A NON-PROFIT N.Y. CORPORATION,ET AL., PETITIONERS, v. UNITED STATES Env’t Prot. AGENCY,RESPONDENT.NATURAL Res. Def. COUNCIL, INC., A NON-PROFIT N.Y. CORPORATION,ET AL., PETITIONERS, v. UNITED STATES Env’t Prot. AGENCY,RESPONDENT., 496 F.2d 1196 (9th Cir. 1974)

Type
Opinion
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1974-06-11
Topic
general

NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COU. v. U.S.E.P.A., 496 F.2d 1196 (9th Cir. 1974) NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC., A NON-PROFIT NEW YORK CORPORATION,ET AL., PETITIONERS, v. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,RESPONDENT.NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC., A NON-PROFIT NEW YORK CORPORATION,ET AL., PETITIONERS, v. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,RESPONDENT. Nos. 72-2145, 72-2147.United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COU. v. U.S.E.P.A., 496 F.2d 1196 (9th Cir. 1974). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COU. v. U.S.E.P.A.,496 F.2d 1196(9th Cir. 1974)
NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC., A NON-PROFIT NEW YORK CORPORATION,
ET AL., PETITIONERS, v. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
RESPONDENT.
NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC., A NON-PROFIT NEW YORK CORPORATION,
ET AL., PETITIONERS, v. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
RESPONDENT.
Nos. 72-2145, 72-2147.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
June 11, 1974.
Richard E. Ayres, Natural Resources Defense Council (argued), Washington, D.C., for petitioners.

Thomas C. Lee, James R. Moore, argued, Civil Div. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for respondent.
[1] ORDER
Before TRASK and SNEED, Circuit Judges, and LINDBERG,fn*District Judge.Page 1197
[2] Discussions have continued between the Environmental Protection Agency and officials of the State of Washington pending argument and, with the approval of the court, after argument in anticipation of a settlement of the issues. It now appears that the Washington plan has been modified and may be further modified to accommodate objections between parties.

[3] Because negotiations are ongoing and the issues not clearly joined the petition in No. 72-2147 is dismissed without prejudice to a later refiling should any issues remain in disagreement.

[4] It is ordered that No. 72-2145 is hereby submitted for decision upon the basis of the briefs, oral argument, and the supplementary memoranda and stipulations filed subsequent to oral argument.Page 1197
  1. Honorable William J. Lindberg, Senior United States District Judge, Western District of Washington, sitting by designation. ↩