Thomas Martin Malina and Mrs. Thomas Martin Malina v. Judge Douglas Gonzales

1 F.3d 304, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 21874, 1993 WL 323170
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided August 26, 1993·No. 91-3757·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinions

PER CURIAM:

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

Thomas Martin Malina and Mrs. Thomas Martin Malina v. Judge Douglas Gonzales, 1 F.3d 304, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 21874, 1993 WL 323170 (5th Cir. 1993).

1 F.3d 304 (Thomas Martin Malina and Mrs. Thomas Martin Malina v. Judge Douglas Gonzales) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Rosemond
2019 Ohio 5356 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2019)
Haley v. Leary
69 So. 3d 430 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2010)