Michael Cuero v. Matthew Cate

850 F.3d 1019, 2017 WL 908239, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 4078
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided March 8, 2017·No. 12-55911·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinions

Concurrence by Judge WARDLAW;

Dissent by Judge CALLAHAN

ORDER

Judges Silverman1 and Wardlaw have voted to deny the petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc. Judge [1020]*1020O’Scannlain has voted to grant the petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc.

The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en banc. A judge requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. The matter failed to receive a'majority of the votes of the nonrecused active judges in favor of en banc consideration. Fed. R. App. P. 35.

The petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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

Michael Cuero v. Matthew Cate, 850 F.3d 1019, 2017 WL 908239, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 4078 (9th Cir. 2017).

850 F.3d 1019 (Michael Cuero v. Matthew Cate) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Obert v. State
2024 MT 270 (Montana Supreme Court, 2024)
Kernan v. Cuero
583 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court, 2017)