United States v. City of Oakland, California, and Nuclear Free Oakland, Inc. Steven P. Bloom, Intervenors-Appellants

Good Law
92 Daily Journal DAR 3107·958 F.2d 300·1992 WL 41363·22 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 169·1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 3653
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 9, 199290-16538California1,129 words

Opinion

Opinion

Schroeder, J.

Appellants seek to appeal the merits of a judgment entered in an action to which appellants never became parties. The dis-positive issue is whether we have jurisdiction to consider such an appeal.

On November 8, 1988, voters in the City of Oakland, California, adopted by initiative the Oakland Nuclear Free Zone Act, Ordinance No. 11062. The Ordinance contained a variety of prohibitions effective upon the city and its citizens with respect to the manufacture, transport, and storage of nuclear weapons and nuclear reactors. The case underlying this appeal was brought by the United States against the City of Oakland challenging the constitutionality of some provisions of the Ordinance. Nuclear Free Oakland, Inc. and Steven Bloom (the “proponents”), sought to intervene as of right in this case before the district court as “the drafters, sponsors, and proponents of the ordinance.”

There was no opposition to the proponents’ attempted intervention and appellee United States concedes on appeal that they were entitled to intervene as of right in the district court. See Yniguez v. Arizona, 939 F.2d 727 (9th Cir.1991); Washington State Bldg. & Constr. Trades v. Spellman, 684 F.2d 627 ,…

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.