You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Gautreaux, Dorothy v. Chicago Housing

Citation: Not availableDocket: 05-3578

Court: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; August 6, 2007; Federal Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

Narrative Opinion Summary

In the case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, the plaintiffs, including individuals such as Dorothy Gautreaux and others, brought an action against the Chicago Housing Authority (CHA) and Terry Peterson. The appeal stemmed from proceedings in the Northern District of Illinois under Judge Marvin E. Aspen. The defendants-appellants sought a rehearing and rehearing en banc following an unfavorable decision. However, their petition was denied as no active judge called for a vote, and the original panel unanimously declined the rehearing request. Additionally, the court corrected a clerical error in its previous opinion, substituting a reference to 'Terry Peterson' with 'the CHA.' Notably, Chief Judge Frank H. Easterbrook and Judge Joel M. Flaum abstained from the consideration of the rehearing petition. The outcome maintained the status quo, affirming the district court's original decision and reflecting standard judicial procedures for handling appeals and opinion amendments.

Legal Issues Addressed

Amendment of Judicial Opinion

Application: The court amended its original opinion to correct a reference, demonstrating the procedural process for rectifying clerical errors in judicial documents.

Reasoning: Additionally, the court amended its opinion released on June 26, 2007, by correcting a reference from 'Terry Peterson' to 'the CHA' on page 14 of the opinion.

Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc

Application: The court denied the defendants-appellants' petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc as no judge in regular active service requested a vote, and all members of the original panel voted against it.

Reasoning: Defendants-Appellants submitted a petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc on July 9, 2007. However, no judge in regular active service requested a vote on this petition, and all members of the original panel voted to deny the rehearing.