Elliott v. Leavitt

105 F.3d 174
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided January 24, 1997·No. Nos. 96-1150, 96-1151·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinions

ORDER

A member of the Court requested a poll on whether this case should be reheard en bane. [175]*175A majority of the judges in active service voted that it should not be reheard en banc.

Judges Hall, Murnaghan, Ervin, Michael, and Motz voted for rehearing en banc. Chief Judge Wilkinson, and Judges Russell, Widener, Wilkins, Niemeyer, Hamilton, Luttig, and Williams voted against rehearing en banc.

Chief Judge Wilkinson filed an opinion concurring in the denial of rehearing en banc, in which Judges Russell, Widener, Wilkins, Niemeyer, Luttig, and Williams joined. Judge Motz filed an opinion dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc, in which Judges Hall, Murnaghan, Ervin, and Michael joined.

The suggestion for rehearing en banc is hereby denied. Entered at the direction of Chief Judge Wilkinson for the Court.

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

Elliott v. Leavitt, 105 F.3d 174 (4th Cir. 1997).

105 F.3d 174 (Elliott v. Leavitt) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Candido Romo v. Jeff Largen
723 F.3d 670 (Sixth Circuit, 2013)
Vandevander v. Voorhaar
767 A.2d 339 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 2001)
Richards v. Ferrebee
Fourth Circuit, 1999
In re: Allen v.
Fourth Circuit, 1997
Better Government Bureau, Inc. v. McGraw
119 F.3d 1129 (Fourth Circuit, 1997)