Landry v. Hoepfner

Fifth Circuit

Landry v. Hoepfner

822 F.2d 510

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJuly 9, 1987

DocketNo. 85-3784

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 822 F.2d 510 (Landry v. Hoepfner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Landry v. Hoepfner, 822 F.2d 510 (5th Cir. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND ON SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC

(Opinion June 3, 1987, 5 Cir., 1987, 818 F.2d 1169)

Before CLARK, Chief Judge, GEE, RUBIN, REAVLEY, POLITZ, RANDALL, JOHNSON, WILLIAMS, GARWOOD, JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, HILL, and JONES, Circuit Judges.

BY THE COURT:

A member of the Court in active service having requested a poll on the suggestion for rehearing en banc and a majority of the judges in active service having voted in favor of granting a rehearing en banc,

IT IS ORDERED that this cause shall be reheard by the Court en banc with oral argument on a date hereafter to be fixed. [511]*511The Clerk will specify a briefing schedule for the filing of supplemental briefs.

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

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND ON SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC

(Opinion June 3, 1987, 5 Cir., 1987, 818 F.2d 1169)

Before CLARK, Chief Judge, GEE, RUBIN, REAVLEY, POLITZ, RANDALL, JOHNSON, WILLIAMS, GARWOOD, JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, HILL, and JONES, Circuit Judges.

BY THE COURT:

A member of the Court in active service having requested a poll on the suggestion for rehearing en banc and a majority of the judges in active service having voted in favor of granting a rehearing en banc,

IT IS ORDERED that this cause shall be reheard by the Court en banc with oral argument on a date hereafter to be fixed. [511]*511The Clerk will specify a briefing schedule for the filing of supplemental briefs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

822 F.2d 510, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/landry-v-hoepfner-ca5-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack