United States v. Trunnell Levett Price and Arnold Lewis Coffey

484 F.2d 485, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 8298

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided August 17, 1973·No. 71-3038, 71-3039·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinions

ORDER

On request of a member of the court who was not a member of the panel, proceedings were commenced in April 1973 to obtain a vote of the court to consider the case en banc.

All members of the court in active service have considered the request for en banc consideration. A majority of the court has rejected the request.

Judge Wallace, with whom Judges Wright Trask, Choy, and Goodwin concur, files an opinion dissenting from the rejection of en banc consideration. Chief Judge Chambers files a special concurrence in the refusal to consider the case en banc.

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

ORDER

On request of a member of the court who was not a member of the panel, proceedings were commenced in April 1973 to obtain a vote of the court to consider the case en banc.

All members of the court in active service have considered the request for en banc consideration. A majority of the court has rejected the request.

United States v. Trunnell Levett Price and Arnold Lewis Coffey, 484 F.2d 485, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 8298 (9th Cir. 1973).

Pincite

484 F.2d 485 (United States v. Trunnell Levett Price and Arnold Lewis Coffey) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Ervin James Horton v. Richard L. Dugger, T.L. Barton

895 F.2d 714 (Eleventh Circuit, 1990)

Joseph Frederick Robards v. John Rees, Superintendent, Kentucky State Reformatory and David L. Armstrong, Attorney General

789 F.2d 379 (Sixth Circuit, 1986)

United States v. Hilda Loman and Larry Loman

551 F.2d 164 (Seventh Circuit, 1977)

United States v. Trunnell Levett Price and Arnold Lewis Coffey

484 F.2d 485 (Ninth Circuit, 1973)

Opinions

Related