Spink v. Lockheed Corporation

Ninth Circuit

Spink v. Lockheed Corporation

105 F.3d 1320, 97 Daily Journal DAR 1085, 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 828, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 1795

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Spink v. Lockheed Corporation. Read the opinion of the Court — 60 F.3d 616 →

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided January 29, 1997·No. 92-56094·Published

Opinion

105 F.3d 1320

97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 828

Paul L. SPINK, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
LOCKHEED CORPORATION; Daniel M. Tellep; Robert A. Furman;
Vincent N. Marafino; K.H. Anderson; L. Bernard; R.W.
Berry; P.N. Braun-Agel; D.L. Bronco; R.H. Northcutt;
W.E. Skowronski; A.G. Van Shaick; W.T. Vincent,
Defendants-Appellees.

No. 92-56094.

United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.

Jan. 29, 1997.

On Remand from the United States Supreme Court. D.C. No. CV-92-0800-SWV.

Before D.W. NELSON, REINHARDT, and BRUNETTI, Circuit Judges.

Prior report: 116 S.Ct. 1783, 60 F.3d 616

Plaintiff-Appellant's petition for rehearing, suggestion for rehearing en banc, and request for recall of mandate, received September 23, 1996, is ordered filed.

Plaintiff-Appellant's request for recall of mandate is GRANTED.

The defendants-appellees shall file a response to the plaintiff-appellant's petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing en banc. Said response shall not exceed fourteen (14) pages and shall be filed within fourteen (14) days from the date this order is filed.

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