Kennedy v. City of Ridgefield
This text of 440 F.3d 1091 (Kennedy v. City of Ridgefield) 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.
Opinions
ORDER WITHDRAWING OPINION AND DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
ORDER
The opinion filed June 23, 2005, and amended September 12, 2005, appearing at 411 F.3d 1134 and 423 F.3d 1117 respectively, and the opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, appearing at 411 F.3d at 1146, are withdrawn and may not be cited as precedent by or to this court or any district court of the Ninth Circuit. An opinion and dissenting opinion are published by separate order.
Judge Bybee votes to grant the petition for rehearing en banc. Judges Browning and Tashima recommend denying the petition for rehearing en banc.
The fall court was advised of the petition for rehearing en banc, and a judge requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. The case 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 en banc is DENIED. No further petitions shall be entertained.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
440 F.3d 1091, 2006 WL 539128, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kennedy-v-city-of-ridgefield-ca9-2006.