McDaniel v. Appraisal Institute

127 F.3d 1135, 1997 WL 572248

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in McDaniel v. Appraisal Institute. Read the opinion of the Court — 117 F.3d 421 →

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided September 16, 1997·No. No. 94-17158·Published

Opinion

ORDER

The concurring opinion, filed June 30, 1997 [117 F.3d 421], is amended as follows:

Delete the first full sentence on Slip Opinion page 7592 [117 F.3d at 424], starting with “The Institute ...” and replace it with: “The Institute only accepts between two and seven percent of its candidates, and MAI appraisers get over 90% of the commercial business in Southern Arizona.”

With the above amendment, the appellant’s petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing en banc is DENIED. The appellee’s petition for rehearing is also DENIED.

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

ORDER

The concurring opinion, filed June 30, 1997 [117 F.3d 421], is amended as follows:

With the above amendment, the appellant’s petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing en banc is DENIED. The appellee’s petition for rehearing is also DENIED.

McDaniel v. Appraisal Institute, 127 F.3d 1135, 1997 WL 572248 (9th Cir. 1997).

Pincite

127 F.3d 1135 (McDaniel v. Appraisal Institute) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

1997-1 Trade Cases P 71,851, 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5173, 97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 8400 James C. McDaniel v. Appraisal Institute, a Corporation Organized Under the Laws of the State of Illinois, Fka American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers of the National Association of Realtors Dan W. Mahoney, Husband Susan Mahoney, Wife Sanders Solot, Husband Ruth-Jean Solot, Wife

117 F.3d 421 (Ninth Circuit, 1997)

Opinion

Related