CHIMES DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, INC. v. King

977 A.2d 928, 2009 D.C. App. LEXIS 329, 2009 WL 2252250
District of Columbia Court of Appeals·Decided July 30, 2009·No. 06-AA-1003·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinions

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

On consideration of respondent’s petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc, and petitioner’s consent motion for leave to file the lodged response, it is

ORDERED that the motion is granted and the Clerk is directed to file the lodged response to the petition. It is

FURTHER ORDERED by the merits division * that the petition for rehearing is denied; and it appearing that the majority of the judges of this court has voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc, it is

FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for rehearing en banc is denied.

Senior Judge KING would grant the petition for rehearing.

Associate Judges RUIZ, KRAMER, and OBERLY would grant rehearing en banc.

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

CHIMES DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, INC. v. King, 977 A.2d 928, 2009 D.C. App. LEXIS 329, 2009 WL 2252250 (D.C. 2009).

977 A.2d 928 (CHIMES DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, INC. v. King) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

CHIMES DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, INC. v. King
977 A.2d 928 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2009)