O. GEORGE SPECHT, JR. AND JUNE B. SPECHT, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES,

v.

ROGER JENSEN, DOUG MARTIN, AND DON OWENS, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS, PAT TELLIER AND KEN JACOBS, DEFENDANTS; O. GEORGE SPECHT, JR. AND JUNE B. SPECHT, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, V. ROGER JENSEN, PAT TELLIER, DOUG MARTIN, DON OWENS AND KEN JACOBS, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES

10th Cir. | 1988-02-04

Nos. 85-1457, 85-1533

Before HOLLOWAY, Chief Judge, and SETH, McKAY, LOGAN, SEYMOUR, MOORE, ANDERSON, TACHA and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges.

837 F.2d 940 United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (1988) Negative Treatment

Cited by 28 cases

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.

Holding

The court granted rehearing en banc to consider whether an attorney can testify as an expert on the law and unconstitutional searches.

Facts & Procedural History

Following a panel opinion, defendants petitioned for rehearing en banc. The court voted to rehear only one specific issue regarding expert testimony.…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Topics

Rehearing En Banc Expert Testimony

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Rehearing En Banc cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

Upon filing of the panel opinion in this case, Specht v. Jensen, 832 F. 2d 1516 (10th Cir.1987), defendants petitioned this court for rehearing with a suggestion for rehearing en banc. The court has voted to en banc only one issue: whether the district court committed reversible error when it permitted an attorney to testify as an expert witness, to give his views on the law, and to give his opinion on whether defendants engaged in unconstitutional searches of plaintiffs’ premises.

The court directs the parties to file supplemental briefs on this issue as follows:

(1) Defendants shall file an opening brief not to exceed 25 pages on or before March 6, 1988.

(2) Plaintiffs shall file their responsive brief not to exceed 25 pages on or before April 5, 1988.

(3) Defendants may file a reply brief not to exceed 10 pages on or before April 19, 1988.

The court will hear oral argument on the issue at its May term of court in Denver. The parties will be notified of the specific date and time.

The opinion at 832 F. 2d 1516 is not vacated because a number of issues therein will be unaffected by the en banc decision. The judgment entered November 10, 1987, is vacated.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (14 total)

Meade v. Grubbs, 841 F.2d 1512 (10th Cir. 1988)
United States v. Clemons, 843 F.2d 741 (3d Cir. 1988)
Gunn v. Lanson Newsome, 881 F.2d 949 (11th Cir. 1989)

Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Specht v. Jensen, 832 F.2d 1516 (10th Cir. 1987)

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw