Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

88-4092 (1990)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Number: 88-4092 Visitors: 8
Filed: Apr. 19, 1990
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 899 F.2d 1565 OREGON NATURAL RESOURCES COUNCIL; Hells Canyon Preservation Council; Friends of Lake Fork; Ric Bailey, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Richard LYNG, Secretary of Agriculture; U.S. Forest Service; Robert Richmond, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Supervisor, Defendants-Appellees, Eagle Cap Logging, Inc.; RMH Aeroservices, Inc.; Boise-Cascade Corp.; Ellingson Lumber Co.; Idaho Timber Corp. of Oregon, Inc.; North Powder Lumber Co.; Sequoia Forest Industries; Union Forest Products Co.; Northw
More

899 F.2d 1565

OREGON NATURAL RESOURCES COUNCIL; Hells Canyon Preservation
Council; Friends of Lake Fork; Ric Bailey,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
Richard LYNG, Secretary of Agriculture; U.S. Forest
Service; Robert Richmond, Wallowa-Whitman
National Forest Supervisor, Defendants-Appellees,
Eagle Cap Logging, Inc.; RMH Aeroservices, Inc.;
Boise-Cascade Corp.; Ellingson Lumber Co.; Idaho Timber
Corp. of Oregon, Inc.; North Powder Lumber Co.; Sequoia
Forest Industries; Union Forest Products Co.; Northwest
Timber Workers Resource Council; Save Our Snake,
Defendant-Intervenors-Appellees.

No. 88-4092.

United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.

April 19, 1990.

Before WRIGHT, REINHARDT and TROTT, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

1

In his petition for rehearing, the Secretary contends that he was not given an adequate opportunity to be heard on the issue of attorneys' fees. We agree. Accordingly, the opinion is amended by deleting Section IV entitled "Attorneys' Fees," 882 F.2d 1417 at pages 1427-28 and replacing it with the following:

2

ONRC seeks attorneys' fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act for both the underlying district court action and for the appeal. Pursuant to Circuit Rule 39-1.8, consideration of all such fee matters is ordered transferred for a determination de novo to the district court.

3

At page 1428, the fourth sentence of the CONCLUSION starting with "On remand, the district court...." is ordered deleted from the opinion.

4

With the opinion so amended, the panel has voted unanimously to deny the petitions for rehearing filed by both parties. Both are denied.

5

SO ORDERED.

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer