James Lee MILLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donald H. RUMSFELD, Secretary of Defense Et Al., Defendant-Appellees

Ninth Circuit

James Lee MILLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donald H. RUMSFELD, Secretary of Defense Et Al., Defendant-Appellees

647 F.2d 80, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 13248, 26 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 32,028, 25 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1690

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMay 15, 1981

Docket77-1671

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 647 F.2d 80 (James Lee MILLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donald H. RUMSFELD, Secretary of Defense Et Al., Defendant-Appellees) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

James Lee MILLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donald H. RUMSFELD, Secretary of Defense Et Al., Defendant-Appellees, 647 F.2d 80, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 13248, 26 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 32,028, 25 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1690 (9th Cir. 1981).

Pincite

Opinions

ORDER

The panel as constituted in the above case has voted to deny the petition for rehearing of 632 F.2d 788.

The suggestion for a rehearing en banc having been submitted to a vote of the full court, there is no majority in favor of the suggestion.

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

Among those judges of the court voting to hear the case en banc were Judges Booch-ever and Norris, who file the following dissents from the rejection of the en banc suggestion.

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