Romo v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.

Ninth Circuit

Romo v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.

742 F.3d 909, 2014 WL 505173

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 10, 2014

DocketNos. 13-56310, 13-56306

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 742 F.3d 909 (Romo v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.) 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

Romo v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 742 F.3d 909, 2014 WL 505173 (9th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

KOZINSKI, Chief Judge:

Upon the vote of a majority of nonre-cused active judges, it is ordered that these cases be reheard en banc pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 35(a) and Circuit Rule 35-3. The three-judge panel opinion in Romo v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., No. 13-56310, shall not be cited as precedent by or to any court of the Ninth Circuit.

Judge McKEOWN did not participate in the deliberations or vote in this case.

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 nonre-cused active judges, it is ordered that these cases be reheard en banc pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 35(a) and Circuit Rule 35-3. The three-judge panel opinion in Romo v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., No. 13-56310, shall not be cited as precedent by or to any court of the Ninth Circuit.

Judge McKEOWN did not participate in the deliberations or vote in this case.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

742 F.3d 909, 2014 WL 505173, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/romo-v-teva-pharmaceuticals-usa-inc-ca9-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack