Baker v. Exxon Mobile Corp.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
Order; Dissent to Order by Judge KOZINSKI; Dissent to Order by Judge BEA; Per Curiam Opinion; Dissent by Judge BROWNING.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The opinion in In re Exxon Valdez, 472 F.3d 600 (9th Cir.2006) is amended as follows: On page 621, delete the first full paragraph commencing with “There is also a limit on the law of the case doctrine ...” and concluding with “... may not generally be used as part of the calculation of harm.”
With that amendment, the panel has voted to otherwise deny the petition for panel rehearing.
The petition for panel rehearing is DENIED.
The full court was advised…
Also in this document: Dissent · Kozinski; Dissent · Bea; Per curiam.
2Cases cited45 opinions
- International Shoe Co. v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
- BMW of North America, Inc. v. GoreSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. CampbellSupreme Court of the United States · 2003
- Pacific Mutual Life Insurance v. HaslipSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
40 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- In re Exxon ValdezCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2007
- Dixon-Rollins v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2010
- Kiviti v. PompeoDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 2020