Northeastern Rural Electric Me v. Wabash Valley Power Associati

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
DecidedApril 29, 2013
Docket12-2037
StatusPublished

This text of Northeastern Rural Electric Me v. Wabash Valley Power Associati (Northeastern Rural Electric Me v. Wabash Valley Power Associati) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Northeastern Rural Electric Me v. Wabash Valley Power Associati, (7th Cir. 2013).

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604

April 29, 2013

Before

MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

JOHN D. TINDER, Circuit Judge

DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge No. 12-2037

NORTHEASTERN RURAL ELECTRIC Appeal from the United States District Court MEMBERSHIP CORPORATION, for the Southern District of Indiana, Plaintiff-Appellant, Indianapolis Division.

v. No. 1:11-cv-00144-SEB-DML

WABASH VALLEY POWER Sarah Evans Barker, ASSOCIATION, Judge. Defendant-Appellee.

ORDER

On consideration of the petition for rehearing en banc, filed on March 8, 2013 , all judges on the original panel have voted to deny the petition for panel rehearing, and no judge in active service has requested a vote for rehearing en banc.

Accordingly, the petition for rehearing en banc is DENIED.

On page three of the slip opinion issued February 22, 2013, the third sentence of the new, full paragraph is hereby AMENDED as follows:

The denial of a motion to remand ordinarily cannot be appealed provide a basis for appellate jurisdiction before a final judgment, see 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d)1292, but here we have jurisdiction over the denial of the motion to remand because it is “inextricably intertwined” with the appealable preliminary injunction.

As amended, the sentence shall now read:

The denial of a motion to remand ordinarily cannot provide a basis for appellate jurisdiction before a final judgment, see 28 U.S.C. § 1292, but here we have jurisdiction over the denial of the motion to remand because it is “inextricably intertwined” with the appealable preliminary injunction.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Northeastern Rural Electric Me v. Wabash Valley Power Associati, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/northeastern-rural-electric-me-v-wabash-valley-pow-ca7-2013.