green
Positive treatment
8.1 score
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Canatella v. State of California
(2×)
ORDER 1 The Opinion filed on June 12, 2002, and appearing at slip op. 8487 [ 293 F.3d 1099 ] is amended as follows: 2 At slip op. page 8499 [293 F.3d at 1105-06], delete the first full paragraph (beginning "In reciting the factual background concerning the California State Bar disciplinary system....") through the end of section B at slip op. page 8501 [293 F.3d at 1107] (last sentence reads "Because this was the only action that had taken place at the time Canatella filed his federal complaint...."), and substitute the following in its place: 3 The major issue in Hirsh, in determining whether…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Canatella v. California
(2×)
ORDER The Opinion filed on June 12, 2002, and appearing at slip op. 8487 [ 293 F.3d 1099 ] is amended as follows: At slip op. page 8499 [293 F.3d at 1105-06], delete the first full paragraph (beginning “In reciting the factual background concerning the California State Bar disciplinary system ....”) through the end of section B at slip op. page 8501 [293 F.3d at 1107] (last sentence reads “Because this was the only action that had taken place at the time Canatella filed his federal complaint .... ”), and substitute the following in its place: The major issue in Hirsh, in determining wh…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Pearlie RUCKER Herman Walker Willie Lee Barbara Hill
v.
Harold DAVIS Oakland Housing Authority, and United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, Defendant-Appellant Pearlie Rucker Herman Walker Willie Lee Barbara Hill v. Harold Davis Oakland Housing Authority, and United States Department of Housing and Urban Development
v.
Harold DAVIS Oakland Housing Authority, and United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, Defendant-Appellant Pearlie Rucker Herman Walker Willie Lee Barbara Hill v. Harold Davis Oakland Housing Authority, and United States Department of Housing and Urban Development
Nos. 98-16322, 98-16542.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Jun 17, 2002.
293 F.3d 1099
Fernandez, Gould, Hawkins, McKeown, Nelson, Paez, Pregerson, Reinhardt, Schroeder, Silverman, Sneed.
Published
ORDER
The Supreme Court having reversed the en banc court, we remand to the district court to vacate the injunction and enter judgment for Defendants Appellants.
SO ORDERED.