Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Washington v. Strickland
679 F.2d 23
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1982-05-14
- Topic
- bankruptcy
BY THE COURT: A majority of the Judges in active service, on the Court’s own motion, having determined to have this case reheard en banc, IT IS ORDERED that this cause shall be reheard by the Court en banc on briefs with oral argument on a date hereafter to be fixed. The Clerk will specify a briefing schedule for the filing of supplemental briefs.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Washington v. Strickland. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 2 opinions
WASHINGTON v. STRICKLAND,679 F.2d 23(5th Cir. 1982)
DAVID LEROY WASHINGTON, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, v. CHARLES E. STRICKLAND,
SUPERINTENDENT; JIM SMITH, ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF FLORIDA; LOUIE L.
WAINWRIGHT, SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES.
No. 81-5379.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.fn*
Unit B.
May 14, 1982.
Calvin Fox, Asst. Atty. Gen., Miami, Fla., for respondents-appellees.
[1]ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
[2] (Opinion April 23, 1982, 5 Cir., 1982,673 F.2d 879).
Before GODBOLD, Chief Judge, RONEY, TJOFLAT, HILL, FAY, KRAVITCH, FRANK M. JOHNSON, Jr., HENDERSON, ANDERSON, and THOMAS A. CLARK, Circuit Judges.fn**
[4] IT IS ORDERED that this cause shall be reheard by the Court en banc on briefswithoral argument on a date hereafter to be fixed. The Clerk will specify a briefing schedule for the filing of supplemental briefs.Page 24