Otto v. Pennsylvania State Education Ass'n-NEA

Third Circuit

Otto v. Pennsylvania State Education Ass'n-NEA

328 F.3d 715, 2003 WL 21027246

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedMay 8, 2003

DocketNos. 01-3858, 01-4110; D.C. Civil Action No. 96-cv-01233

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 328 F.3d 715 (Otto v. Pennsylvania State Education Ass'n-NEA) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Otto v. Pennsylvania State Education Ass'n-NEA, 328 F.3d 715, 2003 WL 21027246 (3d Cir. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

SUR PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING WITH SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC

The petition for rehearing filed by Appellants having been submitted to the judges who participated in the decision of this Court, and to all the other available circuit judges of the Circuit in regular active service, and a majority of the circuit judges of the Circuit in regular active service not having voted for rehearing by the Court en bane, the petition for rehearing is DENIED. Chief Judge Becker * and Judge Nygaard would have granted rehearing en banc.

The judges who participated in the decision of the Court having voted for rehearing, the petition for panel rehearing is granted and the opinion and judgment en[716]*716tered April 3, 2003 are vacated. An amended opinion is issued as of this date.

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

SUR PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING WITH SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC

The petition for rehearing filed by Appellants having been submitted to the judges who participated in the decision of this Court, and to all the other available circuit judges of the Circuit in regular active service, and a majority of the circuit judges of the Circuit in regular active service not having voted for rehearing by the Court en bane, the petition for rehearing is DENIED. Chief Judge Becker * and Judge Nygaard would have granted rehearing en banc.

The judges who participated in the decision of the Court having voted for rehearing, the petition for panel rehearing is granted and the opinion and judgment en[716]*716tered April 3, 2003 are vacated. An amended opinion is issued as of this date.

Marsha Otto F. Naylor Emory Dennis A. Erb Robert K. Gilbert James W. Lossell Barbara J. McAlley Wesley S. Semple, on Behalf of Themselves and All Other Non-Members Similarly Situated v. Pennsylvania State Education Association-Nea National Education Association Shaler Area Education Association, on Behalf of Themselves and All Other Local Associations Similarly Situated Marsha Otto F. Naylor Emory Dennis A. Erb Robert K. Gilbert James W. Lossell Barbara J. McAlley Wesley S. Semple, on Behalf of Themselves and All Other Non-Members Similarly Situated v. Pennsylvania State Education Association-Nea Shaler Area Education Association, on Behalf of Themselves and All Other Local Associations Similarly Situated National Education Association Grove City Area Education Association Jane Campbell Barbara Leiby

328 F.3d 715 (Third Circuit, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

328 F.3d 715, 2003 WL 21027246, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/otto-v-pennsylvania-state-education-assn-nea-ca3-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack