Covey v. Hollydale Mobilehome Estates

125 F.3d 1281, 1997 WL 562345
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided September 11, 1997·No. No. 96-55056·Published·Cited by 21 cases

Opinion

ORDER

Prior report: 116 F.3d 830.

The opinion filed June 18, 1997, Slip op. 7065 is amended as follows:

At page 7080 [116 F.3d at 836, left column, first full paragraph], second full paragraph should read:

Moreover, by retroactively changing the standard for determining whether the Park, in 1993, provided “significant facilities and services specifically designed to meet the physical or social needs of older persons,” 42 U.S.C. § 3607(b)(2)(C)(i), applying the 1995 regulations would “impair rights [Covey] possessed when [Hollydale] acted.” Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 279, 114 S.Ct. at 1505.8

With this amendment, the panel as constituted in the above case has voted to deny the petition for rehearing. Judges Fletcher and Pregerson have voted to reject the sugges[1282]*1282tion for rehearing en banc and Judge Wexler recommends rejection.

The full court has been advised of the suggestion for rehearing en banc and no judge of the court has requested a vote on it. Fed. R.App. P. 35(b).

The petition for rehearing is denied and the suggestion for rehearing en banc is rejected.

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

Covey v. Hollydale Mobilehome Estates, 125 F.3d 1281, 1997 WL 562345 (9th Cir. 1997).

125 F.3d 1281 (Covey v. Hollydale Mobilehome Estates) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In re: Beverlyann Lee
Ninth Circuit, 2020
Bumbaca v. Township of Edison
861 A.2d 156 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 2004)
Egan v. Schmock
93 F. Supp. 2d 1090 (N.D. California, 2000)
Aalmuhammed v. Lee
202 F.3d 1227 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)
McBride v. PLM International, Inc.
179 F.3d 737 (Ninth Circuit, 1999)
Christie v. Iopa
176 F.3d 1231 (Ninth Circuit, 1999)
Tworivers v. Lewis
174 F.3d 987 (Ninth Circuit, 1999)
Akiyama Corp. of America v. M.V. Hanjin Marseilles
162 F.3d 571 (Ninth Circuit, 1998)