Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company, et al.,plaintiffs-appellants, v. Board of Equalization of the State of California, et al.,defendants-appellees.southern Pacific Transportation Company, et al., Plaintiffs-appellants, v. Board of Equalization of the State of California, et al.,defendants-appellees.trailer Train Company, et al., Defendants-appellees. v. Board of Equalization of the State of California, et al.,defendants-appellees
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. - 828 F.2d 9
Argued July 8, 1985.Submitted Aug. 28, 1985.Decided Sept. 21, 1987
Crosby, Heafey, Roach & May, Peter W. Davis, Oakland, Cal., Arnold I. Weber, William E. Saul, and Claude E. Kolm, and Heller, Ehrman, White & McAuliffe, Weyman I. Lundquist, San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiffs-appellants.
Howard, Rice, Nemerovski, Canady, Robertson & Falk, Dirk M. Schenkkan, and Julian O. Standen, Deputy Atty. Gen., San Francisco, Cal., for defendants-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California; Spencer M. Williams, District Judge, Presiding.
Before FERGUSON, NORRIS and WIGGINS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
We deferred submission of the petitions for rehearing in this case pending the Supreme Court's decision in Burlington N.R.R. v. Oklahoma Tax Comm'n, ___ U.S. ____, 107 S.Ct. 1855, 95 L.Ed.2d 404 (1987). The petitions for rehearing are now granted, and we vacate our disposition, published at 795 F.2d 1442. We reverse and remand to the district court for proceedings consistent with Burlington Northern.
REVERSED and REMANDED.