Tom KING, Appellant, v. Shirley S. CHATER, Appellee

Eighth Circuit

Tom KING, Appellant, v. Shirley S. CHATER, Appellee

83 F.3d 211, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 10436, 1996 WL 224148

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedMay 3, 1996

Docket95-1478

StatusPublished

This text of 83 F.3d 211 (Tom KING, Appellant, v. Shirley S. CHATER, Appellee) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Tom KING, Appellant, v. Shirley S. CHATER, Appellee, 83 F.3d 211, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 10436, 1996 WL 224148 (8th Cir. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

*212 Petition for Rehearing.

Before BOWMAN, BEAM, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This is appellant’s second petition for rehearing in this case. We denied the first such petition on the ground that appellant had not raised the issue of the invalidity of SSR 86-8, 1986 WL 68636, in the lower court. See King v. Chater, 80 F.3d 254 (8th Cir.1996). Petitioner now makes the point that he did, in fact, assert the invalidity of SSR 86-8 in his objections to the magistrate’s report and recommendation. That is literally true, but the invalidity of SSR 86-8 was not urged below in support of the argument that the appellant is making on appeal. Our denial of rehearing in the first instance needs to be understood in this context. We therefore deny this second petition for rehearing.

We direct counsel’s attention to 8th Cir.R. 35A(a) and 8th Cir.R. 35A(c)(3), which relieve counsel in most instances from the duty of petitioning for rehearing and caution against frivolous petitions.

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

*212 Petition for Rehearing.

Before BOWMAN, BEAM, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This is appellant’s second petition for rehearing in this case. We denied the first such petition on the ground that appellant had not raised the issue of the invalidity of SSR 86-8, 1986 WL 68636, in the lower court. See King v. Chater, 80 F.3d 254 (8th Cir.1996). Petitioner now makes the point that he did, in fact, assert the invalidity of SSR 86-8 in his objections to the magistrate’s report and recommendation. That is literally true, but the invalidity of SSR 86-8 was not urged below in support of the argument that the appellant is making on appeal. Our denial of rehearing in the first instance needs to be understood in this context. We therefore deny this second petition for rehearing.

We direct counsel’s attention to 8th Cir.R. 35A(a) and 8th Cir.R. 35A(c)(3), which relieve counsel in most instances from the duty of petitioning for rehearing and caution against frivolous petitions.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

83 F.3d 211, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 10436, 1996 WL 224148, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tom-king-appellant-v-shirley-s-chater-appellee-ca8-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack