City and County of San Francisco, a Municipal Corporation v. United Airlines, Department of the Army, Secretary of the Interior, Defendants-Intervenors-Appellants, Turlock Irrigation District, Public Agencies of the State of California v. City and County of San Francisco, a Municipal Corporation, Cecil D. Andrus, Secretary of the Interior of the United States, Plaintiff-Intervenor, Turlock Irrigation District, a Public Agency of the State of California, and Modesto Irrigation District, a Public Agency of the State of California v. City and County of San Francisco, a Municipal Corporation

Good Law
616 F.2d 1063
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNovember 27, 197978-1778California3,326 words

Opinion

Opinion

616 F.2d 1063 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, a municipal corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNITED AIRLINES et al., Defendants-Appellants, Department of the Army, Secretary of the Interior, Defendants-Intervenors-Appellants, TURLOCK IRRIGATION DISTRICT et al., public agencies of the State of California, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, a municipal corporation, Defendant-Appellant, Cecil D. Andrus, Secretary of the Interior of the United States, Plaintiff-Intervenor, Appellee. TURLOCK IRRIGATION DISTRICT, a public agency of the State of California, and Modesto Irrigation District, a public agency of the State of California, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, a municipal corporation, Defendant-Appellee. Nos. 77-3826, 77-3827, 78-1778 and 78-2859. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Sept. 25, 1979. Rehearing Denied Nov. 27, 1979. George A. Sears (argued), Robert M. Westburg, Russell L. Johnson, Jerome Falk, Jr. (argued), San Francisco, Cal., C. Max Vassanelli (argued), Washington, D. C., for Turlock Irrigation Dist., Dept. of the Army et al., appellees. McMorris M. Dow, Steven L. Mayer, Howard Prim, Rice Nemerovski,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.