956 F.2d 970 (10th Cir. 1992), 90-2012, Village of Los Ranchos De Albuquerque v. Marsh
|Docket Nº:||90-2012, 90-2026, 90-2052.|
|Citation:||956 F.2d 970|
|Party Name:||VILLAGE OF LOS RANCHOS DE ALBUQUERQUE; Anne Bullock; Steven Ruffennach; Edward Banks; Bill Derr; R.E. Clark; Ann Clark; Conrad Stack; Arnold Sargeant; Kit Sargeant; Rio Grande Valley Preservation Society, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. John O. MARSH, Secretary of the Department of the Army; Kent R. Genser, Colonel, District Engineer for the Albuquerque|
|Case Date:||February 11, 1992|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit|
Before McKAY, Chief Judge, ALDISERT, [*] HOLLOWAY, LOGAN, SEYMOUR, MOORE, ANDERSON, TACHA, BALDOCK, BRORBY and EBEL, Circuit Judges.
EBEL, Circuit Judge.
The appellants have filed a Petition for Rehearing and Suggestion for Rehearing en Banc to reconsider the decision rendered in our unpublished Order and Judgment of October 24, 1991. 947 F.2d 955 (10th Cir.1991). In that Order, we applied an "arbitrary and capricious" standard to review an agency determination that a proposed project would not have an environmentally significant impact sufficient to require an Environmental Impact Statement ("EIS") 1 under the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"), 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq. Order and Judgment at 4 (citing Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council, 490 U.S. 360, 385, 109 S.Ct. 1851, 1865, 104 L.Ed.2d 377 (1989)). In their petition for rehearing, the appellants point out that prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Marsh, the relevant standard of review in this Circuit was "reasonableness." See Sierra Club v. Hodel, 848 F.2d 1068, 1089 (10th Cir.1988); Park County Resource Council, Inc. v. United States Dep't of Agric., 817 F.2d 609, 621 & n. 4 (10th Cir.1987) (noting circuit split on appropriate standard of review); City of Aurora v. Hunt, 749 F.2d 1457, 1468 (10th Cir.1984); League of Women Voters v. United States Corps of Engineers, 730 F.2d 579, 584-85 (10th Cir.1984); Brandon v. Pierce, 725 F.2d 555, 563 (10th Cir.1984); Jette v. Bergland, 579 F.2d 59, 64 (10th Cir.1978); Wyoming Outdoor Coordinating Council v.
Butz, 484 F.2d 1244, 1248-49 (10th Cir.1973). 2
The panel that rendered the decision denies the petition for rehearing.
In accordance with Rule 35(b), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, the suggestion for rehearing en banc was transmitted to all of the judges of the court in regular active service. Based upon a poll of those judges, rehearing en banc was granted limited to the single issue of the...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP