Narrative Opinion Summary
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ordered the en banc rehearing of the case Karla H. Abatie v. Alta Health & Life Insurance Company. The decision was made upon a majority vote of the nonrecused active judges of the court. As a result, the prior opinion issued by a three-judge panel is not to be cited as precedent by the court or any district court within the Ninth Circuit, unless it is expressly adopted by the en banc court. The case involves Karla H. Abatie as the plaintiff-appellant and Alta Health & Life Insurance Company as the defendant-appellee, with legal representation provided by attorneys from Santa Barbara, CA, and Portland, OR. The order was issued on February 6, 2006.
Legal Issues Addressed
Effect of En Banc Rehearing on Precedential Valuesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court's decision to rehear the case en banc nullifies the precedential value of the three-judge panel's prior opinion unless adopted by the en banc court.
Reasoning: As a result, the prior opinion issued by a three-judge panel is not to be cited as precedent by the court or any district court within the Ninth Circuit, unless it is expressly adopted by the en banc court.
En Banc Rehearing in the Ninth Circuitsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Ninth Circuit ordered an en banc rehearing, which means the case will be reconsidered by a larger panel of judges rather than the original three-judge panel.
Reasoning: The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ordered the en banc rehearing of the case Karla H. Abatie v. Alta Health & Life Insurance Company.