Legal Opinion
Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Veneman
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided June 4, 2007No. 04-15788PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
Order; Concurrence by Judge BYBEE; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge THOMAS.
ORDER
Appellant’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED. The appeal is DISMISSED with prejudice, each party to bear its own costs. The opinion of the three-judge panel, reported at 469 F.3d 826 (9th Cir.2006), is VACATED.
2ConcurrenceBybee, Circuit Judge
I concur in the dismissal of the appeal pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 42(b) and in the vacatur of the panel opinion. I write separately because I believe that this situation presents a very different set of considerations from the cases discussed in Judge Thomas’s partial dissent.
This case involves…
3Cases cited17 opinions
- U.S. Bancorp Mortgage Co. v. Bonner Mall PartnershipSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
- Karcher v. MaySupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- United States v. Bernard Jerry, and Edgar SaundersCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1973
- Izumi Seimitsu Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha v. U. S. Philips Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Ringsby Truck Lines, Inc., and Ringsby-Pacific, Ltd. v. Western Conference of TeamstersCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1982
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
4Cited by1 opinion
- Animal Legal Defense Fund v. VenemanCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2007