Torf

United States v. Torf

Good Law
357 F.3d 900
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNovember 26, 2003Nos. 03-30102, 03-30104 to 03-30107California3,566 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the opinion filed November 26, 2003 and published at 350 F.3d 1010 is amended as follows:

I

At 350 F.3d at page 1013, the paragraph which begins “We have jurisdiction over these consolidated appeals”, and which paragraph immediately precedes “BACKGROUND” is deleted, and the following paragraph is inserted in its place:

II

At 350 F.3d at page 1018, the paragraph which begins “Finally, the government contends ... ”, and which paragraph immediately precedes “CONCLUSION” is deleted, and the following paragraphs are inserted in its place:

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitions for rehearing and for rehearing en banc may be filed following the filing of this Order Amending Opinion. See Ninth Circuit General Order 5.3a.

OPINION

DAVID R. THOMPSON, Senior Circuit Judge:

In May 2000, the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) informed Ponderosa Paint Manufacturing, Inc. (“Ponderosa”) that it was under investigation for violating federal waste management laws. Ponde-rosa hired attorney John McCreedy to advise and defend it in anticipated civil and criminal litigation with the government. McCreedy, on behalf of Ponderosa, retained Mark Torf, an…

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.