Case ID: f2d_995/html/0948-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

ALPINE RIDGE GROUP, a partnership; Monroe Associates, a limited partnership; Brentwood, a limited partnership; Campbell Courts Associates, a partnership; Cheney Gardens Limited Partnership, a limited partnership, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Henry G. CISNEROS, in his official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of Urban Development; U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Defendants-Appellants. ACACIA VILLA; Alicia Park Apartments; Amerige Villa; Antelope Valley, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Henry G. CISNEROS,* Sec. HUD; United States of America, Defendants-Appellants. ALPINE RIDGE GROUP, a partnership; Monroe Associates, a limited partnership; Brentwood, a limited partnership; Campbell Courts Associates, a partnership; Cheney Gardens Limited Partnership, a limited partnership, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, and Bitterroot Manor, a limited partnership, et al., Plaintiffs-Intervenors, v. Henry G. CISNEROS,* in his official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of Urban Development; U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Defendants-Appellants.
    Nos. 91-35573, 91-55354 and 91-35267.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    June 25, 1993.
    Douglas Letter, Civil Div., Dept, of Justice, Washington, DC, for defendants-appellants.
    Warren J. Daheim, Gordon, Thomas, Honeywell, Malanca, Peterson & Daheim, Tacoma, WA, Henry A. Hubschman, Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, Washington, DC, for plaintiffs-appellees.
    Before WALLACE, Chief Judge, HUG, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       Henry G. Cisneros is substituted for his predecessor, Jack Kemp, as Secretary of Department of Urban Development. Fed.R.App.P. 43(c)(1).
    
   ORDER

The mandate of the United States Supreme Court certified on June 2, 1993, in Cisneros v. Alpine Ridge, — U.S.-, 113 S.Ct. 1898, 123 L.Ed.2d 572 reversed the judgment of this court. Therefore, we vacate our opinion at 955 F.2d 1382 (9th Cir.1992), reverse the district court, and remand to the district court for further proceedings which are consistent with the opinion of the Supreme Court.