ERNESTA B. BARNES, ET AL., PETITIONERS,
v.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON, RESPONDENT, AND TIME OIL COMPANY, REAL PARTY IN INTEREST
ERNESTA B. BARNES, ET AL., PETITIONERS,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON, RESPONDENT, AND TIME OIL COMPANY, REAL PARTY IN INTEREST
800 F.2d 822
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (1986)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 42 cases
Opinion of the Court
The petition for a writ of mandamus is granted. The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. § 9601 et seq. does not authorize pre-enforcement review of Environmental Protection Agency orders. See Wheaton Industries v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 781 F. 2d 354, 356 (3d Cir.1986); J.V. Peters & Co., Inc. v. Administrator, EPA, 767 F. 2d 263, 265 (6th Cir.1985). The district court is directed to enter judgment dismissing the complaint.
A certified copy of this order shall act as and for the mandate of the court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (20 total)
-
Sierra Club v. Lt. Gen. Robert L. VAN Antwerp Chief of Eng'rs, 526 F.3d 1353 (11th Cir. 2008)
-
The Fund FOR Animals, Inc. v. Rice, 85 F.3d 535 (11th Cir. 1996)
-
Love v. Thomas, 858 F.2d 1347 (9th Cir. 1988)
Previewing 3 of 20 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- J.V. Peters & Co., Inc. v. Adm'r, Env't Prot. Agency, 767 F.2d 263 (6th Cir. 1985)
- Wheaton Indus. v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 781 F.2d 354 (3d Cir. 1986)