From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Stringfellow

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
May 1, 1985
755 F.2d 1383 (9th Cir. 1985)

Opinion

No. 84-5682.

March 18, 1985. Certiorari Dismissed May 1, 1985.

F. Henry Habicht, II, Robert C. Bonner, James R. Arnold, Los Angeles, Cal., Michael R. W. Green, Dirk D. Snel, Anne S. Almy, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., Lewis D'Amato, Brisbois Bisgaard, Christopher P. Bisgaard, Los Angeles, Cal., Folger Levin, Michael A. Kahn, Douglas Sullivan, San Francisco, Cal., Pachter, Gold Schaffer, Clifford L. Schaffer, McCutchen, Black, Verleger Shea, G. Richard Doty, Michael Hickok, Los Angeles, Cal., Lawrence A. Salibra, II, Cleveland, Ohio, Latham Watkins, David L. Mulliken, Steven P. McDonald, Robert P. Dahlquist, San Diego, Cal., Heller, Ehrman, White McAuliffe, Richard Goff, Rene P. Tatro, McCuthchen, Doyle, Beown Ernersen, Barry P. Goode, San Francisco, Cal., Chase, Rotchford, Drukker Bogust, Vincent Fish, Los Angeles, Cal., for the United States.

Frederic D. Woocher, Joel R. Reynolds, Felicia A. Marcus, Carlyle W. Hall, Jr., John R. Phillips, Los Angeles, Cal., for intervenors-appellants.

Before GOODWIN and REINHARDT, Circuit Judges, and SOLOMON, District Judge.

Hon. Gus D. Solomon, Senior United States District Judge for the District of Oregon, sitting by designation.


ORDER

The portion of the order of February 17, 1984 denying appellants' motion to intervene as of right is reversed. The portion of the order granting appellants leave to intervene permissively is vacated. Upon remand appellants shall be granted leave to intervene as of right.

In view of the decision set forth above, we need not decide the question as to the appropriateness of the conditions that the district court attached to the appellants' participation as a Permissive intervenor. We, of course, express no view as to what conditions, if any, may appropriately be placed upon the appellants' participation in the litigation in their capacity as intervenors as of right, or upon the participation of any other parties to the litigation. An opinion will follow.

REVERSED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.


Summaries of

United States v. Stringfellow

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
May 1, 1985
755 F.2d 1383 (9th Cir. 1985)
Case details for

United States v. Stringfellow

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. J.B. STRINGFELLOW, JR.…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: May 1, 1985

Citations

755 F.2d 1383 (9th Cir. 1985)

Citing Cases

Stringfellow v. Concerned Neighbors in Action

P. 380. 755 F.2d 1383, vacated and remanded. POWELL, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which…