Legal Opinion
James Fernhoff v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, and Does I-Xx
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided October 28, 1986No. 85-1624PublishedCited by 27 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
REINHARDT, Circuit Judge:
Appellant James Fernhoff, appearing pro se, petitioned for a writ of mandamus declaring either that the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (“the Planning Agency”) has no authority to prohibit him from developing a parcel of land he owns near Lake Tahoe or, in the alternative, directing the Planning Agency to grant any authorization necessary for him to develop the property. The district court granted the Planning Agency’s motion for summary judgment and denied Fernhoff’s petition. We affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
Fernhoff owns 4.67 acres of land near Lake Tahoe and wishes to…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Brown v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- United States v. ScottSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Marrese v. American Academy of Orthopaedic SurgeonsSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Edward Ashton v. Kenneth CoryCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1986
- Santiago Amaro v. The Continental Can CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1984
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by27 opinions
- William Partridge James Zagorski William Stojack v. Robert B. Reich Helen Haase U.S. Department of LaborCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1998
- McCarthy v. MayoCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1987
- Mahon v. Credit Bureau of Placer County Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1999
- United States v. CheelyDistrict Court, D. Alaska · 1992
- Sandra Jean Smith, Etc. v. Retirement Fund Trust of the Plumbing, Heating and Piping Industry of Southern CaliforniaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1988
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.