Legal Opinion
Sussex v. United States District Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided January 27, 2015No. 14-70158PublishedCited by 32 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER AND AMENDED OPINION
ORDER
The opinion filed on January 27, 2015, and published at 776 F.3d 1092, is hereby amended as follows:
On page 1099, the first sentence of the final paragraph should be deleted and replaced with the following:
The majority of our sister circuits expressly preclude any mid-arbitration intervention.
On page 1100, the following should be added to the end of the paragraph continued from page 1099:
However, we need not address the precise scope of the Aerojet-General exception because, as we discuss in the next section, this is clearly not an “extreme case” in which…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. v. ByrdSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Kerr v. United States Dist. Court for Northern Dist. of Cal.Supreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Hall Street Associates, L. L. C. v. Mattel, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2008
- Chiron Corporation, a Delaware Corporation v. Ortho Diagnostic Systems, Inc., a New Jersey CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000
- Bankers Life & Casualty Co. v. HollandSupreme Court of the United States · 1953
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by32 opinions
- County of Orange v. United States District CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2015
- Williams-Sonoma, Inc. v. Usdc-CasfCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2020
- Pharmaniaga Berhad v. EHealthline.com, Inc.District Court, E.D. California · 2018
- Creech v. United States District Court for the District of Idaho, BoiseCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2024
- Swift Transportation Co. v. United States District Court for District of ArizonaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2016
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.