Legal Opinion
Day v. AT & T Disability Income Plan
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided July 3, 2012No. 10-16479PublishedCited by 29 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
The opinion filed July 3, 2012, and reported at 685 F.3d 848, is amended as follows:
At slip opinion page 7859 n. 6, 685 F.3d at 857 n. 6, replace the sentence <To the extent Day requests fees for time spent pursuing summary judgment, he is not a prevailing party and is not therefore entitled to fees.> with <To the extent Day requests fees for time spent pursuing summary judgment, he is not entitled to fees because he did not achieve success on the merits. >.
With this amendment, the panel has voted to deny Appellant’s petition for panel rehearing. Judges Fisher and Rawlinson have voted to…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 2006
- Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. BruchSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Varity Corp. v. HoweSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- James Chappel v. Laboratory Corporation of America, AKA National Health LabCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000
- Abatie v. Alta Health & Life Ins. Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2006
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by29 opinions
- Tibble v. Edison InternationalCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2013
- Echague v. Metropolitan Life InsuranceDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2014
- Glenn Tibble v. Edison InternationalCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2013
- David Day v. At&t Disability Income PlanCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2015
- Mull v. Motion Picture Industry Health PlanDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2012
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.