Home/Ninth Circuit/Kyocera Corp. v. Prudential-Bache Trade Services, Inc.

Kyocera Corp. v. Prudential-Bache Trade Services, Inc.

314 F.3d 1003, 2002 WL 31875348
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided December 17, 2002·No. Nos. 01-15630, 01-15653, 01-16182, 01-16394, 01-16528, 01-16392·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

ORDER

Upon the vote of a majority of nonre-cused regular active judges of this court,1 it is ordered that this case be reheard by the en banc court pursuant to Circuit Rule 35-3. The three-judge panel opinion shall not be cited as precedent by or to this court or any district court of the Ninth Circuit, except to the extent adopted by the en banc court.

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

Kyocera Corp. v. Prudential-Bache Trade Services, Inc., 314 F.3d 1003, 2002 WL 31875348 (9th Cir. 2002).

314 F.3d 1003 (Kyocera Corp. v. Prudential-Bache Trade Services, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Kyocera Corporation, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant v. Prudential-Bache Trade Services, Inc., Fdba Prudential-Bache Trade Corporation, Prudential Capital & Investment Services, Inc., Lapine Technology Corporation, and Lapine Holding Company, Inc., Defendants-Counter-Claimants-Appellees. Lapine Technology Corporation v. Kyocera Corporation, Lapine Technology Corporation, Plaintiff-Counter-Claim-Defendant-Appellee v. Kyocera Corporation, Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Plaintiff-Appellant v. Prudential-Bache Trade Order Services, Inc., Fdba Prudential-Bache Trade Corporation Prudential Capital & Investment Services, Inc., Defendants-Counter-Claimants-Appellees
314 F.3d 1003 (Ninth Circuit, 2002)