Thomas Martin Malina and Mrs. Thomas Martin Malina v. Judge Douglas Gonzales
This text of 1 F.3d 304 (Thomas Martin Malina and Mrs. Thomas Martin Malina v. Judge Douglas Gonzales) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinions
The petition for rehearing is DENIED.
In their petition for rehearing, the plaintiffs point out that the court has erred in saying that Malina was told to appear in court the next day. The plaintiffs correctly show that the Second Amended Complaint alleges that Malina was told to appear in the judge’s office the next day. We hereby correct the opinion in this regard. This does not alter our analysis or the result, however. As our opinion states, one of the four factors from McAlester v. Brown, 469 F.2d 1280, 1282 (5th Cir.1972), is whether the acts occurred in the courtroom or appropriate adjunct spaces such as the judge’s chambers.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
1 F.3d 304, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 21874, 1993 WL 323170, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-martin-malina-and-mrs-thomas-martin-malina-v-judge-douglas-ca5-1993.