Matthew Kiman, & United States, Intervenor v. New Hampshire Dep't of Corr., 310 F.3d 785 (1st Cir. 2002). · Go Syfert
Search
Matthew Kiman, & United States, Intervenor v. New Hampshire Dep't of Corr., 310 F.3d 785 (1st Cir. 2002). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
19 citation events (19 in the last 25 years) across 13 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Kiman v. NH DOC (nhd, 2005-05-25)
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Kiman v. NH DOC
D.N.H. · 2005 · confidence medium
Dep't of Corr., 310 F.3d 785, 785 (1st Cir. 2002).
cited Cited "see" Official Committee of Asbestos of G-I Holding, Inc. v. Heyman
S.D.N.Y. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors of Cybergenics Corp. v. Chinery, 304 F.3d 316 (3d Cir.2002), vacated, 310 F.3d 785 (3d Cir. 2002), rehearing en banc, 330 F.3d 548 (3d Cir.2002).
discussed Cited "see" Official Committee of Asbestos v. G-I Holdings Inc. (G-I Holdings Inc.)
D.N.J. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
See In re Cybergenics Corp., 304 F.3d 316, 332 (3d Cir.2002)(“Cybergenics II”), rehearing en banc granted and opinion vacated by Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Cybergenics Corp. v. Chinery, 310 F.3d 785 (3d Cir.2002). 5 The Committee therefore contended that a trustee must be appointed in order to prosecute certain fraudulent-transfer and preference-avoidance actions against Heyman and other defendants.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Veneman
9th Cir. · 2007 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors of Cybergenics Corp. v. Chinery, 310 F.3d 785 (3d Cir.2002) (“having voted for rehearing en banc in the above appeal, it is ordered that the Clerk of this Court vacate the opinion and judgment [of the panel].”) (emphasis omitted); Amos v. Maryland Dept. of Pub.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Veneman
9th Cir. · 2007 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors of Cybergenics Corp. v. Chinery, 310 F.3d 785 (3d Cir.2002) ("having voted for rehearing en banc in the above appeal, it is ordered that the Clerk of this Court vacate the opinion and judgment [of the panel].") (emphasis omitted); Amos v. Maryland Dept. of Pub.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Matthew KIMAN, Plaintiff, Appellant, and United States, Intervenor,
v.
NEW HAMPSHIRE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Et Al., Defendants, Appellees
02-1099.
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
Nov 13, 2002.
310 F.3d 785
Boudin, Torruella, Selya, Lynch, Lipez, Howard.
Cited by 5 opinions  |  Published

Order of the En Banc Court

The petition for rehearing en banc is granted. The panel opinion of this court of August 20, 2002 is withdrawn and the judgment of this court of August 20, 2002 is vacated. Both sides and the intervenor United States are directed to file simultaneous supplementary briefs not to exceed 30 pages per side, which should assume the familiarity of the en banc court with the briefs already filed on this appeal and need not repeat arguments addressed therein. The supplemental briefing should address the Eleventh Amendment issues, with particular focus on the following:

1. Whether the state’s invocation of a sovereign immunity defense under the Eleventh Amendment may or should be analyzed as a facial challenge to the entire statute at issue rather than as applied to the facts at issue in the case at bar.
2. Whether the Eleventh Amendment constrains Congress, in addition to any relief it may provide under other statutes such as 42 U.S.C. § 1983, from acting under Title II of the ADA to: (a) provide a separate cause of action; (b) provide remedies, including damages, for such conduct, and; (c) define the standards of proof and defenses.

Ten copies of each brief should be filed by both sides within 30 days of the date of this order. Oral argument is scheduled for 9:00 a.m. on January 6, 2003 in the en banc courtroom in the John Joseph Moak-ley U.S. Courthouse. The attention of counsel is drawn to the requirement of Loe. R. 32 as to the filing of briefs in disk form.

The court welcomes motions to file ami-cus briefs concerning any of the issues in this appeal.