Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

United States v. California

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided April 1, 1977No. 75-3554Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partWallace, Circuit Judge

Although recent Supreme Court decisions leave me with no clear concept of what Congress must say in order to require the federal government to comply with state law, I am persuaded that the language of the statute reviewed here is insufficient to validate California’s permit procedure. While the “shall” in section 8 of the 1902 *1352Reclamation Act appears to be mandatory, and while the Bureau of Reclamation’s conduct over nearly three-quarters of a century indicates that it had no doubt of the necessity for compliance with state law, I cannot say that the language of the section is any clearer or…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Environmental Protection Agency v. California Ex Rel. State Water Resources Control BoardSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  2. Hancock v. TrainSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  3. Galloway v. WattsDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 1975
  4. Zink v. EstelleDistrict Court, S.D. Texas · 1975

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

Powered by the Exa API