Home/Ninth Circuit/Warren Wesley Summerlin v. Terry L. Stewart, Director of Arizona Department of Corrections

Warren Wesley Summerlin v. Terry L. Stewart, Director of Arizona Department of Corrections

309 F.3d 1193, 2002 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10944, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 22990, 2002 WL 31487543
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided November 4, 2002·No. 98-99002·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

ORDER

In response to the Motion for Clarification, the Court notes that when a ease is heard or reheard en banc, the en banc panel assumes jurisdiction over the entire case, see 28 U.S.C. § 46(c), regardless of the issue or issues that may have caused any member of the Court to vote to hear the case en banc. If the Court votes to hear or rehear a case en banc, the en banc panel may, in its discretion, choose to limit the issues it considers. See, e.g., Rand v.

Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 954 n. 1 (9th Cir.1998); United States v. Perez, 116 F.3d 840, 843 n. 2 (9th Cir.1997). However, the en banc panel is under no obligation to do so. Neither General Order 5.2, nor the procedural posture of this case, alters this rule.

Thus, when the Court requests that the parties brief the question of whether a case should be heard or reheard by an en banc panel, it is referring to the entire case.

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

Warren Wesley Summerlin v. Terry L. Stewart, Director of Arizona Department of Corrections, 309 F.3d 1193, 2002 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10944, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 22990, 2002 WL 31487543 (9th Cir. 2002).

309 F.3d 1193 (Warren Wesley Summerlin v. Terry L. Stewart, Director of Arizona Department of Corrections) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Virginia Duncan v. Rob Bonta
83 F.4th 803 (Ninth Circuit, 2023)
United States v. Monique Lozoya
982 F.3d 648 (Ninth Circuit, 2020)
Robert McDaniels v. Richard Kirkland
813 F.3d 770 (Ninth Circuit, 2015)
United States v. Michael Dreyer
804 F.3d 1266 (Ninth Circuit, 2015)
Fernandez-Ruiz v. Gonzales
466 F.3d 1121 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)
Kyocera Corporation, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant v. Prudential-Bache Trade Services, Inc., Dba Prudential-Bache Trade Corporation Prudential Capital & Investment Services, Inc. Lapine Technology Corporation Lapine Holding Co., Defendants-Counter-Claimants-Appellees. Lapine Technology Corporation v. Kyocera Corporation, Lapine Technology Corporation, Plaintiff-Counter-Claim-Defendant-Appellee. v. Kyocera Corporation, Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Plaintiff-Appellant v. Prudential-Bache Trade Services, Inc., Dba Prudential-Bache Trade Corporation Prudential Capital & Investment Services, Inc., Defendants-Counter-Claimants-Appellees
341 F.3d 987 (Ninth Circuit, 2003)
Kyocera Corp. v. Prudential-Bache Trade Services, Inc.
341 F.3d 987 (Ninth Circuit, 2003)