Holmes v. California Army National Guard

Ninth Circuit

Holmes v. California Army National Guard

155 F.3d 1049, 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7548, 98 Daily Journal DAR 10518, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 24522, 74 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 45,513

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided April 6, 1998·No. Nos. 96-35314, 96-15726, 96-15855·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinions

ORDER

Judges Reavley and Wiggins voted to deny plaintiff appellant’s and plaintiff appellees’s joint petition for rehearing and Judge Reinhardt voted to grant the petition for rehear[1050]*1050ing. Judge Wiggins recommends rejection of the suggestion for rehearing en banc and Judge Reinhardt votes to accept the suggestion for rehearing en banc.

The full court was advised of the suggestion for rehearing en bane. An active judge requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. The matter failed to receive a majority of the votes of the nonrecused active judges in favor of en banc consideration. Fed. R.App. P. 35.

The petition for rehearing is denied and the suggestion for rehearing en banc is rejected.

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

ORDER

Judges Reavley and Wiggins voted to deny plaintiff appellant’s and plaintiff appellees’s joint petition for rehearing and Judge Reinhardt voted to grant the petition for rehear[1050]*1050ing. Judge Wiggins recommends rejection of the suggestion for rehearing en banc and Judge Reinhardt votes to accept the suggestion for rehearing en banc.

The full court was advised of the suggestion for rehearing en bane. An active judge requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. The matter failed to receive a majority of the votes of the nonrecused active judges in favor of en banc consideration. Fed. R.App. P. 35.

The petition for rehearing is denied and the suggestion for rehearing en banc is rejected.

Holmes v. California Army National Guard, 155 F.3d 1049, 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7548, 98 Daily Journal DAR 10518, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 24522, 74 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 45,513 (9th Cir. 1998).

Pincite

155 F.3d 1049 (Holmes v. California Army National Guard) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

74 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 45,513, 98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 10,518 Andrew Holmes, First Lieutenant v. California Army National Guard Tandy Bozeman, Major, in His Official Capacity Pete Wilson, Governor, in His Official Capacity, Andrew Holmes, First Lieutenant v. California Army National Guard Tandy Bozeman, Major, in His Official Capacity Pete Wilson, Governor, in His Official Capacity U.S. Army National Guard United States of America William J. Perry, Secretary of Defense, Richard P. Watson, Lieutenant v. William J. Perry, Secretary of Defense John Dalton, Secretary of the Navy United States of America

155 F.3d 1049 (First Circuit, 1998)

Opinions

Related