Pacific Legal Foundation v. State Energy Resources Conservation & Development Commission
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
FLETCHER, Circuit Judge:
These are consolidated appeals from two district court decisions, 489 F.Supp. 699, 472 F.Supp. 191, invalidating portions of California’s Warren-Alquist Act. The WarrenAlquist Act regulates all electric plants in California and imposes a moratorium on the construction of new nuclear plants. The courts below held that insofar as the challenged provisions regulate nuclear plants, they are preempted by the federal Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2011-2282 (1976 & Supp. III 1979).
*907We find that on the records before us, only two of the challenged provisions are ripe for…
2Cases cited53 opinions
- Warth v. SeldinSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Abbott Laboratories v. GardnerSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights OrganizationSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Railroad Comm'n of Tex. v. Pullman Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1941
48 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by47 opinions
- Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. State Energy Resources Conservation & Development CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, Plaintiffs v. The Board of Oil and Gas Conservation of the State of MontanaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1986
- Esther M. Padway v. Peter G. PalchesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1982
- Brothers v. First LeasingCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1984
- Robert E. Gonzales v. Ann McGill Gorsuch, Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection AgencyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1982
42 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.