Carson Harbor Village, Ltd. v. Unocal Corporation

240 F.3d 841
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Carson Harbor Village, Ltd. v. Unocal Corporation. Read the opinion of the Court — 270 F.3d 863
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided February 13, 2001·No. 98-55056·Published

Opinion

240 F.3d 841 (9th Cir. 2001)

CARSON HARBOR VILLAGE, Ltd., a limited partnership dba Carson Harbor Village Mobilhome Park, Plaintiff-counter-defendant Appellant,
v.
UNOCAL CORPORATION, a DELAWARE CORP., Defendant-cross-defendant,
and
CITY OF CARSON, Defendant-cross-defendant-crossclaimant-Appellee.

Nos. 98-55056 98-55210 98-55213 98-55215 98-55422

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

February 13, 2001

ORDER

SCHROEDER, Chief Judge.

Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused regular active judges of this court1 it is ordered that this case be reheard by the en banc court pursuant to Circuit Rule 35-3. The three-judge panel opinion shall not be cited as precedent by or to this court or any district court of the Ninth Circuit, except to the extent adopted by the en banc court.

Notes:

1

Judge Wardlaw was recused

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

Carson Harbor Village, Ltd. v. Unocal Corporation, 240 F.3d 841 (9th Cir. 2001).

240 F.3d 841 (Carson Harbor Village, Ltd. v. Unocal Corporation) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Carson Harbor Village, Ltd. v. Unocal Corp.
240 F.3d 841 (Ninth Circuit, 2001)