Leroy Haeger v. the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co

869 F.3d 707
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedJune 8, 2017
Docket12-17718, 13-16801
StatusPublished

This text of 869 F.3d 707 (Leroy Haeger v. the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co) 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
Leroy Haeger v. the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co, 869 F.3d 707 (9th Cir. 2017).

Opinions

Dissent by Judge Milan D. Smith, Jr.

ORDER

Defendant-Appellant Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company’s unopposed motion for supplemental briefing is DENIED.

Pursuant to the opinion of the Supreme Court in Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger, — U.S. —, 137 S.Ct. 1178, 197 L,Ed.2d 585 (2017), the district court’s $2.7 million sanctions award is VACATED, and, by vote of a majority of the panel judges, the matter is REMANDED to the district court for proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion.

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

Related

Chambers v. Nasco, Inc.
501 U.S. 32 (Supreme Court, 1991)
Fox v. Vice
131 S. Ct. 2205 (Supreme Court, 2011)
Leroy Haeger v. the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co
813 F.3d 1233 (Ninth Circuit, 2016)
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger
581 U.S. 101 (Supreme Court, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
869 F.3d 707, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leroy-haeger-v-the-goodyear-tire-rubber-co-ca9-2017.