The Clorox Company v. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1DissentNorris, Circuit Judge
I dissent because, unlike the majority, I would treat Clorox’s petition for a writ of mandamus as a notice of appeal, thus emphasizing substance over form. Clorox filed its writ while Pelleport Investors, Inc. v. Budco Quality Theatres, Inc., 741 F.2d 273 (9th Cir.1984), was still pending. When Clorox filed its petition, therefore, it was not unreasonable for petitioner to believe the district court’s remand order was reviewable only by mandamus, not by direct appeal. After Pelleport, however, it is clear that the remand order is reviewable by a direct appeal. Since Pelleport arguably changed…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Pelleport Investors, Inc. v. Budco Quality Theatres, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1984
- United States v. Rmi Company Nl Industries, Inc. v. Hon. Daniel J. Snyder, Jr., United States District Judge for the Western District of PennsylvaniaCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1979
- Sam Rabin v. Henry Cohen, B & H Processing Co., and Peterson Manufacturing Co., Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1978
- Curtis Gallery & Library, Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1968
- Earl C. Diamond v. United States District Court for the Central District of California, and United States of America, Real Party in InterestCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1981
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.