Barney Earl Crutchfield v. Louie L. Wainwright, Jim Smith

779 F.2d 1466, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 25701

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit·Decided December 19, 1985·No. 84-3508·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC

(Opinion October 3, 1985, 11th Cir., 1985, 772 F.2d 839)

Before GODBOLD, Chief Judge, RO-NEY, TJOFLAT, HILL, FAY, VANCE, KRAVITCH, JOHNSON, HENDERSON, HATCHETT, ANDERSON and CLARK, Circuit Judges.

BY THE COURT:

A member of this Court in active service having requested a poll on the application for rehearing en banc and a majority of the judges in this Court in active service having voted in favor of granting a rehearing en banc,

IT IS ORDERED that the cause shall be reheard by this Court en banc with oral argument on a date hereafter to be fixed. The clerk will specify a briefing schedule for the filing of en banc briefs. The previous panel’s opinion is hereby VACATED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC

(Opinion October 3, 1985, 11th Cir., 1985, 772 F.2d 839)

Before GODBOLD, Chief Judge, RO-NEY, TJOFLAT, HILL, FAY, VANCE, KRAVITCH, JOHNSON, HENDERSON, HATCHETT, ANDERSON and CLARK, Circuit Judges.

BY THE COURT:

Barney Earl Crutchfield v. Louie L. Wainwright, Jim Smith, 779 F.2d 1466, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 25701 (11th Cir. 1985).

Pincite

779 F.2d 1466 (Barney Earl Crutchfield v. Louie L. Wainwright, Jim Smith) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

State v. Mebane

529 A.2d 680 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1987)

State v. Mebane

511 A.2d 359 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1986)

Opinion

Related