Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1309 v. Laidlaw Transit Services, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
A judge of the court called for a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. On such vote, a majority of the non-recused active judges failed to vote in favor of en banc rehearing. 1 But a small minority of active judges has dissented from the majority’s denial of en banc rehearing.
As we stated in our initial Order (the “Order”), when we interpret a statute, “our purpose is always to discern the intent of Congress.” Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1309 v. Laidlaw Transit Serv., Inc., 435 F.3d 1140, 1146(9th Cir.2006) (citation omitted). And in pursuing that end, we recognized the…
Also in this document: Dissent.
2Cases cited28 opinions
- Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Cardoza-FonsecaSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Caminetti v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1917
- Lamie v. United States TrusteeSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
- Amoco Production Co. v. Village of GambellSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Whitman v. American Trucking Assns., Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2001
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1309, Afl-Cio v. Laidlaw Transit Services, Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2006
- Coleman v. Estes Express Lines, IncCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2011
- Fidelity National Financial v. Colin FriedmanCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2015
- Gallarde v. InsCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2007
- Prince v. Commissioner Social Security AdministrationDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 2019
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.