Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

527 F.3d 853

Docket No. 06-15526.

Perretta v. Prometheus Development Co.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided May 23, 2008.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 2008-05-23

2 counsel of record

Applies CA CORP § 16103

Relies on Perretta v. Prometheus Development Co.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2008-05-23

How this case has been cited

Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently September 2023 · most notably Lacey v. Maricopa County (2012), Evans v. Chalmers (2012)

19 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 state decisions

440200820102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Edward J. Horowitz, Edward J. Horowitz P.C., Pacific Palisades, CA, Bruce Adelstein, Esq., Law Offices of Bruce Adelstein, Dennis A. Kendig, Esq., Kendig Law Firm, Daniel L. Germain, Esq., Ros-man & Germain LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

¶2Steffen N. Johnson, Winston & Strawn, LLP, Washington, DC, Richard P. Tricker, Anderson McPharlin & Conners, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

¶3D.C. No. CV-05-02987-WHA, Northern District of California, San Francisco.

¶4Before: THOMPSON and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and HAYES,* District Judge.

¶6ORDER

¶7The Defendants-Appellees’ motion to file a reply is GRANTED.

¶8The Defendants-Appellees’ Petition for Panel Rehearing is GRANTED. The opinion dated March 27, 2008, 520 F.3d 1039, is withdrawn.

¶9The court requests supplemental briefing by the parties regarding the applicability of the ratification provision of Cal.Corp.Code § 16103(b)(3) to the issue of whether the vote in this case was sufficient to ratify the transaction. The simultaneous briefs may not exceed twenty (20) pages, and shall be due no later than June 13, 2008.

/527/f3d/853 · .json · Public domain