Legal Opinion
Alpine Ridge Group v. Kemp
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided February 7, 1992No. Nos. 91-35267, 91-35573 and 91-55354PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
WALLACE, Chief Judge:
The Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) appeals from decisions of two district courts, 764 F.Supp. 1393, (W.D.Wash.) 774 F.Supp. 1240, (C.D.Cal.) each of which entered a summary or partial summary judgment; one to the Alpine Ridge Group (Alpine) and one to Acacia Villa (Acacia), holding an act of Congress unconstitutional. The district courts had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1361. We have jurisdiction over this timely appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
I
Alpine and Acacia (owners) are developers and owners of…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- United States Trust Co. of NY v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Lynch v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
- Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation v. RA Gray & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
- United States v. Sperry Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Perry v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Cisneros v. Alpine Ridge GroupSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- National Leased Housing Association, and 189 Named v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1997
- Sumner Peck Ranch, Inc. v. Bureau of ReclamationDistrict Court, E.D. California · 1993
- Westlands Water District v. United StatesDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2001
- Madera Irrigation District v. HancockCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1993
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.