Markle Interests, L.L.C. v. United States Fish & Wildlife Service

848 F.3d 635
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided February 14, 2017·No. 14-31008 Cons. w/ 14-31021·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinions

STEPHEN A. HIGGINSON, Circuit Judge:

The court having been polled at the request of one of its members, and a majority of the judges who are in regular active service and not disqualified not having voted in favor (Fed. R. App. P. 35 and 5th Cir. R. 35), the Petition for Rehearing En Banc is DENIED. In the en banc poll, six judges voted in favor of rehearing (Judges Jolly, Jones, Smith, Clement, Owen, and Elrod) and eight judges voted against rehearing (Chief Judge Stewart and Judges Dennis, Prado, Southwick, Haynes, Graves, Higginson, and Costa). Judge Jones, joined by Judges Jolly, Smith, Clement, Owen, and Elrod, dissents from the court’s denial of rehearing en banc, and her dissent is attached.

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

Markle Interests, L.L.C. v. United States Fish & Wildlife Service, 848 F.3d 635 (5th Cir. 2017).

848 F.3d 635 (Markle Interests, L.L.C. v. United States Fish & Wildlife Service) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Usfws
67 F.4th 1027 (Ninth Circuit, 2023)