Rosenthal v. O'Brien

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Rosenthal v. O'Brien. Read the opinion of the Court — 713 F.3d 676
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit·Decided April 30, 2013·No. 11-2210·Errata

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

No. 11-2210

RICHARD ROSENTHAL,

Petitioner, Appellant,

v.

STEVE O'BRIEN,

Respondent, Appellee.

ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this Court issued on April 15, 2013 is amended as follows:

Page 8, lines 7-8: "(quotations omitted)" inserted after "(1st Cir. 2009)".

Page 9, line 7: "('procedural" is corrected to "('[P]rocedural".

Page 9, line 10: "(internal quotation marks omitted)" is corrected to "(quotations omitted)".

Page 12, line 12: "a" is deleted from in between "as" and "factual".

Page 12, line 14: "(per curiam)" is corrected to "(per curiam)".

Page 13, line 13: "(internal quotation marks omitted)" is corrected to "(quotations omitted)".

Page 18, line 15: "clients" is corrected to "client". Page 20, line 17: "385 F.2D 4, 7" is corrected to "835 F.2d 6, 7".

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

Rosenthal v. O'Brien, (1st Cir. 2013).

Rosenthal v. O'Brien (Rosenthal v. O'Brien) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related