Full Case Name:  National Audubon Society, Inc. v. Davis

Share |
Country of Origin:  United States Court Name:  United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Primary Citation:  312 F.3d 416 (9th Cir. 2002) Date of Decision:  Tuesday, April 9, 2002 Jurisdiction Level:  Federal Alternate Citation:  2 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 11,826 Attorneys:  Laurens H. Silver, California Environmental Law Project, Mill Valley, CA; John McCaull, National Audubon Society, Sacramento, CA, for the plaintiffs-appellees National Audubon Society, et al. Katherine Barton, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for appellee United States Department of Agriculture. Clifford T. Lee, California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for defendants-appellees-appellants Gray Davis, et al. Richard D. Gann & George Hunlock, Marvin Morrow & Hunlock, San Diego, CA; John L. Staley, Poway, CA, for intervenors-appellants National Trappers Association, et al. Eric R. Glitzenstein & Jonathan R. Lovvorn, Meyer & Glitzenstein, Washington, DC; Francis M. Goldsberry II, Goldsberry, Freeman & Swanson, Sacramento, CA, for defendants-intervenors-appellants-appellees American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, et al.
Summary:

This order accompanies the Ninth Circuit's decision in National Audubon v. Davis, 307 F.3d 835 (9th Cir. 2002).

ORDER

This court's opinion, filed September 24, 2002 [307 F.3d 835], is hereby amended as follows:

1. Slip Op., page 14932: Delete Footnote 7

2. Slip Op., page 14930: Replace the first two sentences of the second full paragraph with:

"The sponsors argue against preemption on an additional ground. They argue that, even if Proposition 4 does not contain an exception for the protection of endangered species, it is not preempted by the ESA."

With the opinion as amended, the panel has voted unanimously to deny the petition for rehearing. Judges Thomas and W. Fletcher have voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc, and Judge Goodwin so recommends.

The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc and no judge of the court has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. Fed. R.App. P. 35.

The petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc, filed November 8, 2002, are DENIED.
Share |