Lundblad v. Celeste
882 F.2d 207, 1989 WL 91008
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit·Decided July 21, 1989·No. Nos. 87-3651, 87-3689·Published·Cited by 4 cases
Opinion
ORDER
A majority of the Judges of this Court in regular active service have voted for rehearing of this case en banc. Sixth Circuit Rule 14 provides as follows:
The effect of the granting of a hearing en banc shall be to vacate the previous opinion and judgment of this Court, to stay the mandate and to restore the case on the docket as a pending appeal.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the previous decision and judgment of this Court is vacated, the mandate is stayed and this case is restored to the docket as a pending appeal.
The Clerk will direct the parties to file supplemental briefs and will schedule this case for oral argument as soon as practicable.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Lundblad v. Celeste, 882 F.2d 207, 1989 WL 91008 (6th Cir. 1989).
882 F.2d 207 (Lundblad v. Celeste) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Keen A. Umbehr v. Joe McClure Glen Heiser, and George Spencer
44 F.3d 876 (Tenth Circuit, 1995)
Beil v. Lakewood Engineering & Manufacturing Co.
15 F.3d 546 (Sixth Circuit, 1994)
Downtown Auto Parks, Inc. v. City of Milwaukee and William R. Drew, Commissioner of the Department of City Development
938 F.2d 705 (Seventh Circuit, 1991)
Steven Lundblad, Cross-Appellant v. Richard D. Celeste, Governor of Ohio, Cross-Appellees, Ohio Department of Natural Resources
882 F.2d 207 (Sixth Circuit, 1989)