Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Central Platte Natural Resources District v. State

Nebraska Supreme Court

Decided March 25, 1994No. S-92-664Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partCaporale, J.

I agree that the decision of the Department of Water Resources must be reversed in order that the director can consider the effects of the Prairie Bend Project. However, I disagree with the majority’s determination concerning Dr. Ann Bleed’s participation in this matter.

She not only coauthored a report which involved the central issue the director was to decide and examined witnesses, she may, or may not, have been a part of the decisionmaking process. If she was, her participation as a coauthor of the article on the central issue before the director would entitle a reasonable disinterested…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Cinderella Career and Finishing Schools, Inc., Stephen Corporation, Vincent Melzac v. Federal Trade CommissionCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1970
  2. Amos Treat & Co., Inc. v. Securities and Exchange CommissionCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1962
  3. American General Insurance Co. And Fidelity & Deposit Co. Of Maryland v. Federal Trade CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1979
  4. National Rifle Ass'n of America v. US Postal ServiceDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1976

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API