Legal Opinion · Dissent

Daniel P. Cotter v. Patricia Roberts Harris, Secretary of Health and Human Services

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Decided April 29, 1981No. 80-2027Published

1DissentGarth, Circuit Judge

Judge Sloviter, in her opinion Sur Petition for Rehearing Before Panel, states: “The usual, and we believe preferred, practice where the opinions of the panel have already been expressed in majority and dissenting opinions is to rule without opinion on a motion for panel rehearing.” She also expresses regret for “this proliferation of opinions.” I do not, however, know of any such “usual” and “preferred” practice. To the contrary, I have always believed that when vital information such as that now furnished by the Secretary is made available to us in a filed petition, a judge of this court…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Daniel P. Cotter v. Patricia Roberts Harris, Secretary of Health and Human ServicesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1981
  2. George Dobrowolsky v. Joseph A. Califano, Jr., Secretary, Health, Education, and WelfareCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1979
  3. Steadman v. Securities & Exchange CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
  4. Jose E. Baerga v. Elliot Richardson, Individually and as Secretary of Health, Education AndwelfareCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1974
  5. National Labor Relations Board v. Pincus Brothers, Inc.-MaxwellCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1980

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API