Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

California ex rel. Lockyer v. Dynegy, Inc.

Cal. ex rel. Lockyer v. Dynegy, Inc., 387 F.3d 966 (9th Cir. 2004)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
2004-10-29
Topic
general

ORDER The opinion filed July 6, 2004 is hereby amended as follows: At page 8863 of the slip opinion, footnote 17, delete the parenthetical quotation and add the following two sentences at the conclusion of footnote 17 as follows: At issue are not state regulatory schemes for employment discrimination, workers compensation, or the like, which might indirectly and unintentionally have some possible effect on energy prices. Rather, the lawsuit seeks directly to enforce federal tariff obligations. With this amendment, the panel has voted unanimously to deny appellant’s petition for rehearing. Judge O’Scannlain has voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc. Judges Hall and Leavy recommend that the petition for rehearing en banc be denied.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed California ex rel. Lockyer v. Dynegy, Inc.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
7 opinions