In Re: Radmax, Limited

736 F.3d 1012, 2013 WL 5787573
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in In Re: Radmax, Limited. Read the opinion of the Court — 720 F.3d 285
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided October 30, 2013·No. 13-40462·Published

Opinions

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (Opinion June 18, 2013, 720 F.3d 285)

PER CURIAM:

Treating the petition for rehearing en banc as a petition for panel rehearing, the petition for panel rehearing is DENIED. The court having been polled at the re[1013] quest of one of its members, and a majority of the judges who are in regular active service and not disqualified not having voted in favor (Fed. R.App. P. 35 and 5th Cir. R. 35), the petition for rehearing en banc is DENIED.

In the en banc poll, 7 judges voted in favor of rehearing (Chief Judge Stewart and Judges King, Davis, Dennis, Elrod, Graves, and Higginson), and 8 judges voted against rehearing (Judges Jolly, Jones, Smith, Clement, Prado, Owen, Southwick, and Haynes).

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

In Re: Radmax, Limited, 736 F.3d 1012, 2013 WL 5787573 (5th Cir. 2013).

736 F.3d 1012 (In Re: Radmax, Limited) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Will v. United States
389 U.S. 90 (Supreme Court, 1967)
In Re: Radmax, Limited
720 F.3d 285 (Fifth Circuit, 2013)
In re Volkswagen of America, Inc.
545 F.3d 304 (Fifth Circuit, 2008)