Carriger v. Lewis

Ninth Circuit

Carriger v. Lewis

957 F.2d 1554

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 13, 1992

DocketNos. 87-1549, 90-16013, 90-16016, 91-16334 and 91-70614

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 957 F.2d 1554 (Carriger v. Lewis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Carriger v. Lewis, 957 F.2d 1554 (9th Cir. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

[1555]*1555Before WALLACE, Chief Judge, BROWNING, HUG, TANG, SCHROEDER, FLETCHER, FARRIS, PREGERSON, ALARCON, POOLE, D.W. NELSON, CANBY, NORRIS, REINHARDT, BEEZER, HALL, WIGGINS, BRUNETTI, KOZINSKI, NOONAN, THOMPSON, O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, TROTT, FERNANDEZ, RYMER, T.G. NELSON, and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges.

Upon the vote of a majority of nonre-cused regular active judges of this court, it is ordered that this case be reheard by the en banc court pursuant to Circuit Rule 35-3.

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

ORDER

[1555]*1555Before WALLACE, Chief Judge, BROWNING, HUG, TANG, SCHROEDER, FLETCHER, FARRIS, PREGERSON, ALARCON, POOLE, D.W. NELSON, CANBY, NORRIS, REINHARDT, BEEZER, HALL, WIGGINS, BRUNETTI, KOZINSKI, NOONAN, THOMPSON, O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, TROTT, FERNANDEZ, RYMER, T.G. NELSON, and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges.

Upon the vote of a majority of nonre-cused regular active judges of this court, it is ordered that this case be reheard by the en banc court pursuant to Circuit Rule 35-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

957 F.2d 1554, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carriger-v-lewis-ca9-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack