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

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in George N. Allen v. B.J. Bunnell. Read the opinion of the Court — 891 F.2d 736 →

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided May 1, 1990·No. 88-6305·Published

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.

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

Pincite

901 F.2d 820 (George N. Allen v. B.J. Bunnell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related