Opinion · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

Martin v. D.C. Metropolitan Police Department

Martin v. D.C. Metro. Police Dep’t, 817 F.2d 144 (Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit 1987)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1987-05-08
Topic
general

PER CURIAM. Appellants’ suggestion for rehearing en banc has been circulated to the full Court. The taking of a vote was requested. Thereafter, a majority of the judges of the Court in regular, active service voted in favor of the suggestion. Accordingly, it is ORDERED, by the Court en banc, that appellants’ suggestion for rehearing en banc is granted and these cases will be reheard by the Court sitting en banc on the issue presented by appellants in their suggestion.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Martin v. D.C. Metropolitan Police Department. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status
pending
Cited by
45 opinions
MARTIN v. METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT,817 F.2d 144(D.C. Cir. 1987)
JAMES T. MARTIN, JR. v. D.C. METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, ET AL.
Nos. 85-6071, 85-6072.
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
May 8, 1987.
En Banc Order Vacated and Section IV and Dissenting Opinion Reinstated
July 31, 1987.
Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied July 31, 1987.
[1] ORDER
Before WALD, Chief Judge, and ROBINSON, MIKVA, EDWARDS, RUTH BADER GINSBURG, BORK, STARR, SILBERMAN, BUCKLEY, WILLIAMS and DOUGLAS H. GINSBURG, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
[2] Appellants' suggestion for rehearingen banchas been circulated to the full Court. The taking of a vote was requested. Thereafter, a majority of the judges of the Court in regular, active service voted in favor of the suggestion. Accordingly, it is

[3] ORDERED, by the Courten banc,that appellants' suggestion for rehearingen bancis granted and these cases will be reheard by the Court sittingen bancon the issue presented by appellants in their suggestion. It is

[4] FURTHER ORDERED, by the Courten banc,that Section IV of the opinion of February 10, 1987 and the dissenting opinion, be, and the same hereby are, vacated. Except for Sections I, II and III of the majority opinion, all opinions are hereby withdrawn from all future publication.

[5] A future order will govern further proceedings herein.Page 762