Drakes Bay Oyster Company, et al v. Kenneth Salazar, et al
| DRAKES BAY OYSTER COMPANY and KEVIN LUNNY |
| KENNETH L. SALAZAR, in his official capacity as Secretary, U.S. Department of the interior,, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR, U.S. NATIONAL PARK SERVICE and JONATHAN B. JARVIS, in his official capacity as Director, U.S. National Director, U.S. National Park Service , 1849 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20240 |
| 13-15227 |
| February 6, 2013 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Review or Appeal of Agency Decision |
Opinions
We have the following opinions for this case:
| Description |
|---|
 Drakes Bay Oyster Co. v. Jewell
|
|
DRAKES BAY OYSTER COMPANY V. SALLY JEWELL
|
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
9025671808
Filed order and amended opinion (M. MARGARET MCKEOWN, PAUL J. WATFORD and ALGENON L. MARBLEY). Amending Disposition Opinion AFFIRMED; The opinion filed on September 3, 2013, appearing at 729 F.3d 967, is hereby amended. An amended opinion is filed concurrently with this order. With these amendments, Judge McKeown voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc and Judge Marbley so recommends. Judge Watford voted to grant the petition. Amicus Curiae Catherine Rucker s request for judicial notice in support of her brief opposing the petition for rehearing en banc is DENIED. The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc and no judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. Fed. R. App. P. 35. The petition for rehearing en banc is DENIED. No further petitions for en banc or panel rehearing shall be permitted.[8936488]
|
Access the Case Summary and Docket Report to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
