Elizabeth Haskell v. Kamala D. Harris

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Elizabeth Haskell v. Kamala D. Harris. Read the opinion of the Court — 745 F.3d 1269
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided July 25, 2012·No. 10-15152·Published

Opinion

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ELIZABETH AIDA HASKELL;  REGINALD ENTO; JEFFREY PATRICK LYONS, JR.; AAKASH DESAI, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, No. 10-15152 Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.  D.C. No. 3:09-cv-04779-CRB KAMALA D. HARRIS, Attorney ORDER General of California; EVA STEINBERGER, Assistant Bureau Chief for DNA Programs, California Department of Justice, Defendants-Appellees.  Filed July 25, 2012

ORDER

KOZINSKI, Chief Judge:

Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused active judges, it is ordered that this case be reheard en banc pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 35(a) and Circuit Rule 35-3. The three-judge panel opinion shall not be cited as precedent by or to any court of the Ninth Circuit.

Judges Nguyen, Watford and Hurwitz did not participate in the deliberations or vote as to whether the case should be taken en banc.

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

Elizabeth Haskell v. Kamala D. Harris, (9th Cir. 2012).

Elizabeth Haskell v. Kamala D. Harris (Elizabeth Haskell v. Kamala D. Harris) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.