Legal Opinion
United States v. Alpine Land & Reservoir Co.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided June 5, 2002No. 00-15692PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
The opinion filed on February 14, 2002, and reported at 279 F.3d 1189, is hereby amended by adding new footnote 22 at the end of the first sentence, second paragraph, of Part IV. CONCLUSION, slip op. at 2625, 279 F.3d at 1189, as follows:
22 This holding applies only to the extent that the equitable intrafarm exemption was used to find that no abandonment or forfeiture had occurred as to the parcels at issue in the underlying transfer applications. Accordingly, transfer applicant Rambling River is not affected by our remand order because its parcels were not covered by an intra-farm…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Nevada v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Matthew Long v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs Seatrain Lines and Royal Globe Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1985
- United States v. Alpine Land & Reservoir Co.District Court, D. Nevada · 1980
- In Re Waters of Manse SpringNevada Supreme Court · 1940
- Town of Eureka v. Office of the State EngineerNevada Supreme Court · 1992
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians v. NevadaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2013
- United States v. Alpine Land & Reservoir Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
- Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians v. RicciNevada Supreme Court · 2010
- United States v. Alpine Land & Reservoir Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2007
- United States v. Alpine Land & Reservoir Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.