Marilley v. Bonham

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided Feb. 26, 2016.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 2016-02-26

Cited by 9 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2023

1 district · 2 state decisions

2 counsel of record

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2016-02-26

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Jared Morgan Galanis, Gross Law P.C., Todd Richard Gregorian, Fenwick & West LLP, San Francisco, CA, Stuart George Gross, Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP, Burlingame, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.

¶2Gary S. Alexander, Esquire, Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, Margaret Elaine Mecken-stock, Office of the Attorney General, Oakland, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

¶3D.C. No. 4:11-cv-02418-DMR.

¶4ORDER

¶5THOMAS, Chief Judge:

¶6Upon the vote of a majority of nonre-cused active judges, it is ordered that this case be reheard en banc pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 35(a) and Circuit Rule 35-3. The three-judge panel opinion shall not be cited as precedent by or to any court of the Ninth Circuit.

Download

Copy

Embed on your site

Hover to preview · click to copy the code

Search Wikipedia →

Court

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Counsel

Jared Morgan Galanis, Gross Law P.C., Todd Richard Gregorian, Fenwick & West LLP, San Francisco, CA, Stuart George Gross, Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP, Burlingame, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.

Gary S. Alexander, Esquire, Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, Margaret Elaine Mecken-stock, Office of the Attorney General, Oakland, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.