Honorable Alcee L. Hastings v. United States of America United States Senate Honorable Walter J. Stewart James A. Baker, III and Ralph Mecham, Director, Administrative Office of the United States Courts

988 F.2d 1280
CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
DecidedMarch 2, 1993
Docket92-5327
StatusUnpublished

This text of 988 F.2d 1280 (Honorable Alcee L. Hastings v. United States of America United States Senate Honorable Walter J. Stewart James A. Baker, III and Ralph Mecham, Director, Administrative Office of the United States Courts) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Honorable Alcee L. Hastings v. United States of America United States Senate Honorable Walter J. Stewart James A. Baker, III and Ralph Mecham, Director, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, 988 F.2d 1280 (D.C. Cir. 1993).

Opinion

988 F.2d 1280

300 U.S.App.D.C. 322

NOTICE: D.C. Circuit Local Rule 11(c) states that unpublished orders, judgments, and explanatory memoranda may not be cited as precedents, but counsel may refer to unpublished dispositions when the binding or preclusive effect of the disposition, rather than its quality as precedent, is relevant.
Honorable Alcee L. HASTINGS
v.
UNITED STATES of America; United States Senate; Honorable
Walter J. Stewart; James A. Baker, III; and
Ralph Mecham, Director, Administrative
Office of the United States
Courts, Appellants.

Nos. 92-5327, 92-5357

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

March 2, 1993.

[VACATING FROM, 802 F.Supp. 490.]

VACATED AND REMANDED.

Before MIKVA, Chief Judge, STEPHEN F. WILLIAMS and SENTELLE, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the motion for summary reversal, the opposition thereto, and the reply; the request for oral argument on the motion for summary reversal; the motion of American Civil Liberties Union for leave to file memorandum as amicus curiae out of time and the opposition thereto; the motion to dismiss cross-appeal and the opposition thereto; and the Rule 28(j) letter, it is

ORDERED, on the court's own motion, that the district court's order filed September 17, 1992, be vacated and that these consolidated cases be remanded for reconsideration in light of Nixon v. United States, 113 S.Ct. 732 (1993). It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the motions filed by the parties and by the American Civil Liberties Union be dismissed as moot.

The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition of any timely petition for rehearing. See D.C.Cir.Rule 15.

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

Related

Nixon v. United States
506 U.S. 224 (Supreme Court, 1993)
Hastings v. United States
802 F. Supp. 490 (District of Columbia, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
988 F.2d 1280, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/honorable-alcee-l-hastings-v-united-states-of-america-united-states-cadc-1993.