Narrative Opinion Summary
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ordered that the case of Catharina F. Costa v. Desert Palace, Inc. be reheard en banc, following a majority vote of the nonrecused regular active judges. The previous opinion issued by a three-judge panel is not to be cited as precedent by any court within the Ninth Circuit, except where it may be adopted by the en banc court. Judge Rawlinson was recused from this decision.
Legal Issues Addressed
Judicial Recusalsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Judge Rawlinson did not participate in the decision to rehear the case en banc due to recusal.
Reasoning: Judge Rawlinson was recused from this decision.
Precedential Value of Panel Opinionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The opinion from the initial three-judge panel in this case cannot be cited as precedent within the Ninth Circuit unless it is adopted by the en banc court.
Reasoning: The previous opinion issued by a three-judge panel is not to be cited as precedent by any court within the Ninth Circuit, except where it may be adopted by the en banc court.
Rehearing En Bancsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decided to rehear the case en banc, which involves all active judges in the circuit, rather than the original three-judge panel.
Reasoning: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ordered that the case of Catharina F. Costa v. Desert Palace, Inc. be reheard en banc, following a majority vote of the nonrecused regular active judges.