Narrative Opinion Summary
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ordered the en banc rehearing of the case Robert Charles Comer v. Terry L. Stewart and Dora B. Schriro, concerning the appeal from the Arizona Department of Corrections. The decision to rehear the case was made by a majority of nonrecused regular active judges. Consequently, the opinion previously issued by the three-judge panel is not to be cited as precedent, except where it may be adopted by the en banc court. Judge Silverman was recused from the proceedings.
Legal Issues Addressed
En Banc Rehearing in Federal Appellate Courtssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Ninth Circuit Court ordered an en banc rehearing, indicating the case will be reconsidered by a larger group 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 Robert Charles Comer v. Terry L. Stewart and Dora B. Schriro.
Judicial Recusal in Appellate Proceedingssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Judge Silverman's recusal from the proceedings demonstrates the protocol when a judge must abstain from participating in a case due to potential conflicts of interest or other reasons.
Reasoning: Judge Silverman was recused from the proceedings.
Precedential Value of Panel Opinions Prior to En Banc Reviewsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The opinion issued by the three-judge panel is not to be cited as precedent unless it is adopted by the en banc court, reflecting the change in authority once en banc rehearing is granted.
Reasoning: Consequently, the opinion previously issued by the three-judge panel is not to be cited as precedent, except where it may be adopted by the en banc court.