City and County of San Francisco the Airports Commission of the City and County of San Francisco v. Federal Aviation Administration Department of Transportation, National Transportation Safety Board, (Three Cases) County of San Mateo v. Federal Aviation Administration Department of Transportation, National Transportation Safety Board, (Two Cases) City and County of San Francisco the Airports Commission of the City and County of San Francisco v. Federal Aviation Administration Department of Transportation, National Transportation Safety Board, Burlington Air Express ("Burlington"), Respondent-Intervenor

Good Law
942 F.2d 1391
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 21, 199189-70053California5,559 words

Opinion

Opinion

942 F.2d 1391 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO; the Airports Commission of the City and County of San Francisco, Petitioners, v. FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION; Department of Transportation, National Transportation Safety Board, Respondents. (Three Cases) COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, Petitioner, v. FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION; Department of Transportation, National Transportation Safety Board, Respondents. (Two Cases) CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO; the Airports Commission of the City and County of San Francisco, Petitioners, v. FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION; Department of Transportation, National Transportation Safety Board, Respondents, Burlington Air Express ("Burlington"), Respondent-Intervenor. Nos. 89-70055, 89-70053, 89-70057, 89-70482, 89-70483 and 89-70500. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Nov. 5, 1990. Decided Aug. 21, 1991. Steven S. Rosenthal, Morrison & Foerster, Washington, D.C., Porter Goltz, Deputy County Counsel, County of San Mateo, Redwood City, Cal., for petitioners. John A. Bryson, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for respondents. John W. Simpson, Kelley Drye & Warren, Washington, D.C., for intervenor.…

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.