Vigil

Vigil v. Leavitt

Good Law
381 F.3d 826·2004 WL 1936022
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitSeptember 1, 2004No. 02-72424California9,675 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Bybee, J.

ORDER AMENDING OPINION AND GRANTING IN PART RESPONDENTS’ MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OR FOR REHEARING BY THE PANEL AND AMENDED OPINION

ORDER

The opinion, filed May 10, 2004, slip opinion 595, and appearing at 366 F.3d 1025 (9th Cir.2004), is amended as follows:

1. At slip op. 5967, first full paragraph, line 25; 366 F.3d at 1033 , second full paragraph, line 39, delete “and applied here in the approval of Arizona’s SIP.”

2. At slip op. 5967, first full paragraph, line 26; 366 F.3d at 1033 , second full paragraph, line 41, insert the following: “We need not resolve the question whether the EPA’s interpretation of the Act in the course of approving Arizona’s SIP is entitled to Chevron deference, because the result in the present case would be the same under any standard of deference.”

With these amendments, the panel has voted to grant in part respondents’ motion for clarification or for rehearing by the panel. Respondents’ Motion for Clarification or for Rehearing by the Panel has been considered and it is GRANTED IN PART. No further petitions for rehearing may be filed.

OPINION

Martha Vigil, Andy Blackledge and Robin Silver petition for review of a final rule approved by the…

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.