Harbury v. Deutch

D.C. Circuit

Harbury v. Deutch

244 F.3d 960, 345 U.S. App. D.C. 280, 2001 WL 333049

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit·Decided April 6, 2001·No. No. 99-5307·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinions

A statement of Circuit Judge HENDERSON dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc, joined by Circuit Judge SENTELLE, is attached.

Circuit Judge GARLAND did not participate in this matter.

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Appellees’ petition for rehearing en banc and the response thereto have been circulated to the full court. The taking of a vote was requested. Thereafter, a majority of the judges of the court in regular active service did not vote in favor of the [961]*961petition. Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is

ORDERED that the petition be denied.

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

A statement of Circuit Judge HENDERSON dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc, joined by Circuit Judge SENTELLE, is attached.

Circuit Judge GARLAND did not participate in this matter.

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Appellees’ petition for rehearing en banc and the response thereto have been circulated to the full court. The taking of a vote was requested. Thereafter, a majority of the judges of the court in regular active service did not vote in favor of the [961]*961petition. Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is

ORDERED that the petition be denied.

Harbury v. Deutch, 244 F.3d 960, 345 U.S. App. D.C. 280, 2001 WL 333049 (D.C. Cir. 2001).

Pincite

244 F.3d 960 (Harbury v. Deutch) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinions

Related