Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
County of Esmeralda, State of Nevada v. U.S. Department of Energy, County of Inyo, State of California v. U.S. Department of Energy
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided February 20, 1991No. 89-70142, 89-70162Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partWallace, Chief Judge
I agree we have jurisdiction to review Inyo County’s petition, and concur in part 3.A. and the first holding of part 3.B. I respectfully dissent from the remainder of the majority opinion.
Because 42 U.S.C. § 10101(31) does not provide any meaningful criteria for evaluating the Secretary’s decision to deny affected unit status, I conclude that the decision is unreviewable. Even assuming that the Secretary’s decision is subject to judicial review, I see no persuasive basis for the majority’s conclusion that the Secretary abused his discretion in denying affected unit status to Esmeralda and…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. VolpeSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Heckler v. ChaneySupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Webster v. DoeSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Morris Chernock v. John W. Gardner, Secretary of Health, Education and WelfareCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1966
- International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America v. Raymond J. Donovan, Secretary of the United States Department of Labor, International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America v. Raymond J. Donovan, Secretary of the United States Department of LaborCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1984
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.