Richard Stengel v. Medtronic Incorporated

Ninth Circuit

Richard Stengel v. Medtronic Incorporated

686 F.3d 1121, 2012 WL 3039710, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 15379

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJuly 25, 2012

Docket10-17755

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 686 F.3d 1121 (Richard Stengel v. Medtronic Incorporated) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Richard Stengel v. Medtronic Incorporated, 686 F.3d 1121, 2012 WL 3039710, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 15379 (9th Cir. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

KOZINSKI, Chief Judge:

Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused active judges, it is ordered that this case be reheard en banc pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 35(a) and Circuit Rule 35-3. The three-judge panel opinion shall not be dted as precedent by or to any court of the Ninth Circuit.

*1122 Judges Wardlaw, Murguia and Hurwitz did not participate in the deliberations or vote as to whether the case should be taken en banc.

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

ORDER

KOZINSKI, Chief Judge:

Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused active judges, it is ordered that this case be reheard en banc pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 35(a) and Circuit Rule 35-3. The three-judge panel opinion shall not be dted as precedent by or to any court of the Ninth Circuit.

*1122 Judges Wardlaw, Murguia and Hurwitz did not participate in the deliberations or vote as to whether the case should be taken en banc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

686 F.3d 1121, 2012 WL 3039710, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 15379, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richard-stengel-v-medtronic-incorporated-ca9-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack