California & Hawaiian Sugar Co. v. Sun Ship, Inc.

811 F.2d 1264, 3 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 142
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in California & Hawaiian Sugar Co. v. Sun Ship, Inc.. Read the opinion of the Court — 794 F.2d 1433
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided March 3, 1987·No. Nos. 85-2310, 85-2356·Published

Opinion

ORDER

The opinion in this case filed July 22, 1986, 794 F.2d 1433, is amended as follows:

1. Delete the text in the first full paragraph at 1439 beginning with the sentence “C and H claimed that it____”

2. The first sentence of the second full paragraph at 1439 should be added to the preceding paragraph and changed from “Proof of this loss is difficult” to “Proof of its loss is difficult.”

The full court has been advised of the suggestion for rehearing en banc and of the amendments and no judge of the court has requested a vote to rehear the matter en banc. The motion for rehearing is denied and the suggestion for rehearing en banc is rejected. Judge Nelson dissents from the denial of the petition for rehearing.

The motion for leave to file a supplement to the petition for rehearing is denied.

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

California & Hawaiian Sugar Co. v. Sun Ship, Inc., 811 F.2d 1264, 3 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 142 (9th Cir. 1987).

811 F.2d 1264 (California & Hawaiian Sugar Co. v. Sun Ship, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.