People v. Rinehart
California Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
WERDEGAR, J.
California was shaped by the search for gold. In time, the state’s other natural treasures—its waters and wildlife, its forests and coastlines—proved similar draws. We consider here a conflict arising from the competing desires to exploit and to preserve these various resources. The People assert the state may, in pursuit of protecting fish habitats and the quality of the state’s waterways, temporarily ban a particular method of gold mining pending adoption of suitable regulahons. Defendant Brandon Lance Rinehart, convicted of engaging in the banned mining technique,…
2Cases cited40 opinions
- Hines v. DavidowitzSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Wyeth v. LevineSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- United States v. LockeSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Hughes v. OklahomaSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Geer v. ConnecticutSupreme Court of the United States · 1896
35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- People v. HoytCalifornia Supreme Court · 2020
- E. Or. Mining Ass'n v. Dep't of Envtl. QualityOregon Supreme Court · 2019
- Joshua Bohmker v. State of OregonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2018
- California Attorney General Opinion 24-405, California Attorney General Reports2025
- County of Butte v. Dept. of Water ResourcesCalifornia Supreme Court · 2022
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.