Legal Opinion
Bay Institute v. United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided January 23, 2004No. 02-16041, 02-16045; D.C. Nos. CV-97-06140-OWW, CV-98-05261-OWWPublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER AND AMENDED MEMORANDUM *
ORDER
The memorandum disposition filed on June 3, 2003, is amended as follows:(1) The first sentence of Paragraph 5 should be deleted and replaced with: “The district court erred in concluding that Interior lacks, discretion to refrain from crediting the amount of Project yield actually used for any (b)(2) purpose against the designated 800,000 acre feet of Project yield. To hold otherwise would defeat the primary purpose for which the 800,000 acre feet were designated-flsh, wildlife, and habitat restoration.”(2) The final sentence of Paragraph 5 should be deleted…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- George Thomas Franklin v. Jim Fox Martin Murray Robert Morse Bryan Cassandro John Cuneo, Sergeant Eileen Franklin-LipskerCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2002
- The Wilderness Society and the Alaska Center for the Environment v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, an Agency of the United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
3Cited by11 opinions
- San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2012
- Stockton East Water District v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2007
- San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority v. United States Department of the InteriorDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2006
- Coalition for a Sustainable Delta v. JOHN McCAMMANDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2010
- San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority v. United States Department of the InteriorDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2009
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.