Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp.

Ninth Circuit

Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp.

521 F.3d 1215, 2008 WL 919706

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided April 22, 2008·No. 05-56452·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinions

ORDER

All judges on the panel have voted to deny Plaintiff' Appellant’s Petition for Panel Rehearing, and so that petition is DENIED.

The full court has been advised of Plaintiff/Appellant’s Petition for Rehearing En Banc, and a judge of this court requested a vote on whether this case should be reheard en banc; however, a majority of the non-recused active judges of the court did not vote in favor of en banc consideration. Fed. R.App. P. 35. Accordingly, the Petition for Rehearing En Banc is also DENIED. No further petitions for rehearing or rehearing en banc shall be considered.

Judges Graber and Fisher were recused from considering the en banc issues in this case and did not participate in the court’s decision.

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

ORDER

All judges on the panel have voted to deny Plaintiff' Appellant’s Petition for Panel Rehearing, and so that petition is DENIED.

The full court has been advised of Plaintiff/Appellant’s Petition for Rehearing En Banc, and a judge of this court requested a vote on whether this case should be reheard en banc; however, a majority of the non-recused active judges of the court did not vote in favor of en banc consideration. Fed. R.App. P. 35. Accordingly, the Petition for Rehearing En Banc is also DENIED. No further petitions for rehearing or rehearing en banc shall be considered.

Judges Graber and Fisher were recused from considering the en banc issues in this case and did not participate in the court’s decision.

Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 521 F.3d 1215, 2008 WL 919706 (9th Cir. 2008).

Pincite

521 F.3d 1215 (Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinions

Related