Legal Opinion
United States v. Nosal
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided July 5, 2016No. Nos. 14-10037; 14-10275PublishedCited by 63 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Dissent by
Judge REINHARDT
ORDER
The opinion filed on July 5, 2016, and appearing at 828 F.3d 865, is hereby amended. An amended opinion is filed concurrently with this order.
With these amendments, Chief Judge Thomas and Judge McKeown vote to deny the petition -for rehearing en banc. Judge Reinhardt votes to grant the petition for rehearing en banc.
The full 'court has been advised of the petition for rehearing- en banc;- and no judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. Fed. R. App. P. 35.
The petition for rehearing en banc is denied. No further petitions for en banc or…
2Cases cited61 opinions
- Jackson v. VirginiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Neder v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
- Pinkerton v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
- Jones v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
- Moskal v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
56 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by63 opinions
- Inteliclear, LLC v. Etc Global HoldingsCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2020
- Hiq Labs, Inc. v. Linkedin CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2022
- Hiq Labs, Inc. v. Linkedin CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2019
- Nicosia v. Amazon.com, Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 2019
- United States v. Walter LiewCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2017
58 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.