WILLIAM H. BANKS WAREHOUSES, INC., ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
GEORGE L. WATT ET AL., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court denied the petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc.
Appellants filed a petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc after a prior decision. The Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the denial order…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Rehearing En Banc cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
On or about April 18, 1952, a division of this court consisting of Circuit Judges Mathews, Healy and Bone was duly designated and assigned to hear and'decide this case. For that purpose, the division constituted the court. The division heard the case on May 8, 1952, and decided it on May 15, 1952.1
On June 9, 1952, appellants filed a petition for a rehearing and a rehearing en banc. On June 19, 1952, the division made and entered an order denying the petition. On April 13, 1953, the Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the order of June 19, 1952, and remanded the case to this court2 for further proceedings in the light of Western Pacific R. R. Corp. v. Western Pacific R. R. Co., 345 U.S. 247, 73 S.Ct. 656.
On May 27, 1953, this court’s Rule 23 (formerly Rule 25) was amended by adding thereto two new paragraphs reading as follows :
“All petitions for rehearing shall be addressed to and be determined by the court as constituted in the original hearing.
“Should a majority of the court as so constituted grant a rehearing and either from a suggestion of a party or upon its own motion be of the opinion that the case should be reheard en banc, they shall so inform the Chief Judge. The Chief Judge shall thereupon convene the active judges of the court and the court shall thereupon determine whether the case shall be reheard en banc.”
Pursuant to the Supreme Court’s decision of April 13, 1953, and this court’s Rule 23, as amended, the petition for a rehearing and a rehearing en banc has been considered by this court as constituted in the original hearing, and this court as so constituted being of the opinion that the case should not be reheard en banc or otherwise, it is now hereby ordered by this court as so constituted that the petition be and is hereby denied.
. William H. Banks Warehouses v. Watt, 9 Cir., 196 F. 2d 1018.
. Id., 345 U.S. 932, 73 S.Ct. 793.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- W. Pac. R.R. Corp. v. W. Pac. R.R. Co., 345 U.S. 247 (U.S. 1953)
- Bradley Mining Co. v. Boice, 345 U.S. 932 (U.S. 1953)
- William H. Banks Warehouses, Inc. v. Watt, 196 F.2d 1018 (9th Cir. 1952)
- Yodock v. United States, 196 F.2d 1018 (3d Cir. 1952)