United States v. City of Oakland, California, and Nuclear Free Oakland, Inc. Steven P. Bloom, Intervenors-Appellants
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
SCHROEDER, Circuit Judge:
Appellants seek to appeal the merits of a judgment entered in an action to which appellants never became parties. The dis-positive issue is whether we have jurisdiction to consider such an appeal.
On November 8, 1988, voters in the City of Oakland, California, adopted by initiative the Oakland Nuclear Free Zone Act, Ordinance No. 11062. The Ordinance contained a variety of prohibitions effective upon the city and its citizens with respect to the manufacture, transport, and storage of nuclear weapons and nuclear reactors. The case underlying this appeal was brought by…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- United Airlines, Inc. v. McDonaldSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Stringfellow v. Concerned Neighbors in ActionSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Karcher v. MaySupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Robert Blake v. Sant Pallan v. Willie R. Barnes, Commissioner of Corporations of the State of California, Plaintiff-In-Intervention/appellantCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1977
- Sagebrush Rebellion, Inc. v. WattCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1983
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- Churchill County v. BabbittCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1998
- Marine Mammal Conservancy, Inc. v. Department of AgricultureCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1998
- California Department of Toxic Substances Control v. Commercial Realty Projects, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2002
- Hawaii Ventures, LLC v. Otaka, Inc.Hawaii Supreme Court · 2007
- Chula Vista Citizens for Jobs & Fair Competition v. NorrisCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2015
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.