From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
May 1, 1985
760 F.2d 1320 (D.C. Cir. 1985)

Opinion

No. 84-1410.

May 1, 1985.

Before ROBINSON, Chief Judge, and WRIGHT, TAMM, WALD, MIKVA, EDWARDS, GINSBURG, BORK, SCALIA and STARR, Circuit Judges.


ORDER


Upon consideration of petitioners' motion for leave to file exhibits in support of the suggestion for rehearing en banc, the responses thereto, and of the suggestion for rehearing en banc, it is

ORDERED, by the Court en banc, that the motion for leave to file exhibits is granted, and it is

FURTHER ORDERED, by the Court en banc, that petitioners' suggestion for rehearing en banc is granted in part, and it is

FURTHER ORDERED, by the Court en banc, that only Section III.B of the Court's opinion, 751 F.2d 1287 and the corresponding part of the judgment of the Court, issued on December 31, 1984, are hereby vacated, and it is

FURTHER ORDERED, by the Court en banc, that the full power operating license remains in effect and is not stayed pending the rehearing en banc.

BORK, Circuit Judge would deny the motion for leave to file exhibits in support of the suggestion and would deny the suggestion.


Summaries of

San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
May 1, 1985
760 F.2d 1320 (D.C. Cir. 1985)
Case details for

San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Case Details

Full title:SAN LUIS OBISPO MOTHERS FOR PEACE, ET AL. v. UNITED STATES NUCLEAR…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

Date published: May 1, 1985

Citations

760 F.2d 1320 (D.C. Cir. 1985)

Citing Cases

SAN LUIS OBISPO MOTHERS v. U.S. NUC. REG

Subsequently, the full court vacated a portion of the original opinion and judgment and granted rehearing en…

Limerick Ecology Action, Inc. v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

It is undisputed that NEPA does not require consideration of remote and speculative risks. See, e.g., San…