green
Positive treatment
5.8 score
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Veneman
See Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. v. Int’l Bd. of Teamsters, 185 F.3d 1075 (9th Cir.1999) (ordering the case be reheard en banc; “The three-judge panel opinion ... is withdrawn.”); In re Gruntz, 177 F.3d 729 (9th Cir.1999) (same); Hose v. INS, 161 F.3d 1225 (9th Cir.1998) (same).
discussed
Cited "see"
Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Veneman
See Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. v. Int'l Bd. of Teamsters, 185 F.3d 1075 (9th Cir.1999) (ordering the case be reheard en banc; "The three-judge panel opinion . . . is withdrawn."); In re Gruntz, 177 F.3d 729 (9th Cir.1999) (same); Hose v. INS, 161 F.3d 1225 (9th Cir.1998) (same).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company Santa Fe Railway Company
v.
International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 174, an Unincorporated Association Robert A. Hasegawa, an Individual Eric Smith
v.
International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 174, an Unincorporated Association Robert A. Hasegawa, an Individual Eric Smith
97-35859.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Aug 27, 1999.
Published
185 F.3d 1075 (9th Cir. 1999)
Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company; Santa Fe Railway Company, Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 174, an unincorporated association; Robert A. Hasegawa, an individual; Eric Smith, Defendants-Appellants.
No. 97-35859
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
August 27, 1999
Before: Hug, Chief Judge.
ORDER
1
Upon the vote of a majority of nonrehearing regular active judges of this court[1], it is ordered that this case be reheard by the en banc court pursuant to Circuit Rule 35-3. The three-judge panel opinion, Burlington Northern Sante Fe Railway Co. v. Teamsters Local 174, 170 F.3d 897 (9th Cir. 1999), is withdrawn.
NOTE:
1
Judge Wardlaw was recused.