NO.

PLEADING

PARTY

DATE

1

Hatchett, Anderson, Eschbach, U.S.C.A. 11th Circuit Judges

ORDER:

The Farm Interests (three farm corporations and three agricultural organizations) meet the criteria for intervention because of the issues raised in Count I of the Amended Complaint.

The order denying intervention is reversed and the case is remanded to the District Court to allow intervention subject to such conditions as the District Court finds appropriate consistent with this opinion.

Hatchett, U.S.C.A. 11th Circuit Judge:

Dissenting in part: Farm Interests intervention as a matter of right.

1/28/91

2

***

(n/a)

(Western Palm Beach County Farm Bureau, Inc., et al., (WPBFB))

2/19/91

3

2/91

4

1. Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida’s motion for leave to appear as amicus curiae to suggest lack of jurisdiction in this and district court for want of a justiciable case or controversy is denied.

2. Appellants’ Western Palm Beach County Farm Bureau, Inc. motion to strike appellee United States’ petition for rehearing is denied.

3. Appellants’ Western palm Beach County Farm Bureau, Inc. alternative suggestion that an answer to the United States’ petition for rehearing be allowed is granted.

Appellants may file a reply to the United States’ petition for rehearing within 7 days from the date of this order.

3/6/91

5

Decline consider Farm Interests motion, "Suggestion and Motion as to a Lack of Jurisdiction."

As indicated in the court’s opinion in the underlying appeal, the Farm Interests may intervene in this case to protect their right to participate in the development of numeric limits implementing the state’s narrative water quality standards.

The jurisdictional issues raised in the present motion are only indirectly related to the protection of this right.

3/22/91

6

Tendered suggestion of en banc rehearing

5/14/91

7

5/14/91

8

1. Appellants’ WPBFB motion for leave to file suggestion of en banc rehearing within this extended time, as to whether a United States Court of Appeals must determine the presence or absence of its own and the district court’s Article III case-or controversy jurisdiction when that is contested in a case before the Court is denied.
2. Appellants’ WPBFB, FSCL, FFVA, and Beardsley Farms motion for stay of the mandate pending the filing of a petition for writ of certiorari is denied.

3. Appellants’ Roth Farms and KWB Farms joinder in WPBFB motions for leave to submit suggestion of en banc rehearing and for stay of the mandate is granted.

6/5/91

9

JUDGMENT:

1. The order of the United States District Court appealed from in these causes be and the same is reversed; and these causes be and the same are remanded to District Court to allow for intervention subject to such conditions as the District Court finds appropriate, in accordance with the opinion of this Court;

2. Each party bears own costs on appeal.

6/5/91