George N. Allen v. B.J. Bunnell

Ninth Circuit

George N. Allen v. B.J. Bunnell

901 F.2d 820, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 7063, 1990 WL 55057

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMay 1, 1990

Docket88-6305

StatusPublished

This text of 901 F.2d 820 (George N. Allen v. B.J. Bunnell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

George N. Allen v. B.J. Bunnell, 901 F.2d 820, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 7063, 1990 WL 55057 (9th Cir. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

The government has filed a “petition for rehearing” calling our attention to the Supreme Court’s decision in Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 109 S.Ct. 1060, 1075, 103 L.Ed.2d 334 (1989) which appears to apply an even stricter test of retroactivity than that set forth in Allen v. Hardy, 478 U.S. 255, 258, 106 S.Ct. 2878, 2879-2880, 92 L.Ed.2d 199 (1986). The result in this case would thus be the same under the Teague analysis. The petition for rehearing is denied.

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

ORDER

The government has filed a “petition for rehearing” calling our attention to the Supreme Court’s decision in Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 109 S.Ct. 1060, 1075, 103 L.Ed.2d 334 (1989) which appears to apply an even stricter test of retroactivity than that set forth in Allen v. Hardy, 478 U.S. 255, 258, 106 S.Ct. 2878, 2879-2880, 92 L.Ed.2d 199 (1986). The result in this case would thus be the same under the Teague analysis. The petition for rehearing is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

901 F.2d 820, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 7063, 1990 WL 55057, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/george-n-allen-v-bj-bunnell-ca9-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack