Leroy Haeger v. the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co
869 F.3d 707
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Leroy Haeger v. the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. Read the opinion of the Court — 813 F.3d 1233 →
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
Leroy Haeger v. the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co, 869 F.3d 707 (9th Cir. 2017).
869 F.3d 707 (Leroy Haeger v. the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
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)