Edmund Y. Chein v. Richard Shumsky, Chief Probation Officer La County California State Attorney General
340 F.3d 786, 2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7300, 2003 Daily Journal DAR 9352, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 16616, 2003 WL 21962483
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Edmund Y. Chein v. Richard Shumsky, Chief Probation Officer La County California State Attorney General. Read the opinion of the Court — 373 F.3d 978 →
Opinion
ORDER
Upon the vote of a majority of nonre-cused regular active judges of this court, 1 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.
1
. Judge Fisher was recused.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Edmund Y. Chein v. Richard Shumsky, Chief Probation Officer La County California State Attorney General, 340 F.3d 786, 2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7300, 2003 Daily Journal DAR 9352, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 16616, 2003 WL 21962483 (9th Cir. 2003).
340 F.3d 786 (Edmund Y. Chein v. Richard Shumsky, Chief Probation Officer La County California State Attorney General) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.