Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

United States v. Zolin

United States v. Zolin, 850 F.2d 610 (9th Cir. 1988)

Type: Opinion
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 1988-07-05
Topic: general

The opinion published at 842 F.2d 1135 is amended to include the following concurrence:

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed United States v. Zolin. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by: 1 opinion

UNITED STATES v. ZOLIN,850 F.2d 610(9th Cir. 1988)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PETITIONER/APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT, v. FRANK S.

ZOLIN, RESPONDENT/APPELLEE,

AND

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA AND MARY SUE HUBBARD,

INTERVENORS/APPELLANTS/CROSS-APPELLEES.

Nos. 85-6065, 85-6105.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

July 5, 1988.

Before BROWNING, TANG, PREGERSON, ALARCON, NORRIS, REINHARDT, BEEZER, BRUNETTI, THOMPSON and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.

[1] The opinion published at842 F.2d 1135is amended to include the following concurrence:

[2] NORRIS, Circuit Judge, concurring in the result:

[3] I write separately to make it clear that I believe the independent evidence rule has been and should continue to be the law of the circuit.See United States v. Shewfelt,455 F.2d 836(9th Cir.),cert. denied,406 U.S. 944, 92 S.Ct. 2042, 32 L.Ed.2d 331 (1972). However, I cannot join the court's order because the majority has failed to make clear whether the order is a disposition on the merits,i.e.,whether it constitutes en banc authority that theShewfeltindependent evidence rule is the law of the circuit. If the order is intended to be a disposition on the merits, it is internally inconsistent because an en banc panel cannot both decide a case on the merits and vacate as improvidently granted the orderPage 611of the full court authorizing it to decide the case.