in Re Matter of Stephen Yagman, Appellant, Jerry Brown and Gerry Fleisher, Plaintiffs, v. Michael Baden and Sidney Weinberg, Defendants-Appellees., 803 F.2d 1085 (9th Cir. 1986)

Federal Circuits, 9th Cir. (November 06, 1986)

Docket number: 84-5957

Permanent Link: http://vlex.com/vid/yagman-gerry-fleisher-baden-weinberg-37120006
Id. vLex: VLEX-37120006

Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)

Document language

Request manual translation

Search in this document

Document options

Sponsored Ads:

Citations:

Loading article preview... cerrar

cerrar

U.S. Supreme Court - Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752 (1980)

See other documents that cite the same legislation

RSS What's this?

Cited by:

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Cir. - Notice: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 States that Citation of Unpublished Dispositions is Disfavored Except for Establishing Res Judicata, Estoppel, or the Law of the Case and Requires Service of Copies of Cited Unpublished Dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Diana Maria Caballero Rangel Gamber, Defendant-Appellant., 931 F.2d 888 (4th Cir. 1991)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Cir. - Notice: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 Provides that Dispositions Other Than Opinions or Orders Designated for Publication Are Not Precedential and Should Not Be Cited Except When Relevant Under the Doctrines of Law of the Case, Res Judicata, or Collateral Estoppel. Lifecare International, Inc., Plaintiff, and Yasin Olabi and Yasin Olabi, Inc., Appellants, v. Cordis Corporation and Cordis International Corporation, Defendants/Appellees., 51 F.3d 281 (9th Cir. 1995)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Cir. - Notice: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 Provides that Dispositions Other Than Opinions or Orders Designated for Publication Are Not Precedential and Should Not Be Cited Except When Relevant Under the Doctrines of Law of the Case, Res Judicata, or Collateral Estoppel. Haneef Abdur-Rasheed, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Bellsouth Corp.; Bellsouth Communication Systems Group; Dataserv, Inc.; Ivars Wagner; James Nicholson; Dave Teague; Miles Wilson; Jeff Loeb; Frank Walker; Frank Shufelt; Joe Gallo; and Does 1 Through 29 Inclusive, Defendants-Appellees. Haneef Abdur-Rasheed, Plaintiff, Raymond E. Willis, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Bellsouth Corp.; Et Al. Defendants-Appellees., 951 F.2d 358 (9th Cir. 1991)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fed. Cir. - Notice: Federal Circuit Local Rule 47.8(B) States that Opinions and Orders Which Are Designated as Not Citable as Precedent Shall Not Be Employed or Cited as Precedent. this Does Not Preclude Assertion of Issues of Claim Preclusion, Issue Preclusion, Judicial Estoppel, Law of the Case or the Like Based on a Decision of the Court Rendered in a Nonprecedential Opinion or Order. Miu Automation Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ibm Corporation, Defendant-Appellee., 960 F.2d 156 (Fed. Cir. 1992) Issue Preclusion, Judicial Estoppel, Law of the Case or the Like Based on a Decision of the Court Rendered in a Nonprecedential Opinion or Order. Miu Automation Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ibm Corporation, Defendant-Appellee.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Cir. - United States of America, Appellee, v. Ervin J. Klaphake, Appellant., 64 F.3d 435 (8th Cir. 1995)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Cir. - Yolanda Camacho Degurules, Petitioner, v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, Respondent. Luis Hernandez-Leguizamo and Lucila Salgado de Hernandez, Petitioners, v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, Respondent., 833 F.2d 861 (9th Cir. 1987) Petitioner, v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, Respondent. Luis Hernandez-Leguizamo and Lucila Salgado de Hernandez, Petitioners, v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, Respondent.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Cir. - Fred R. Gaskell, Et Al., Plaintiffs, and Richard A. Canatella, Appellant, v. S.L. Weir; Leo J. Schiavello; Christina C. Schiavello; Michael D. Meadows; Taylor & Meadows; Kenneth P. Gray, Esq.; Pamela W. Levin; Susan E. Hayes; Thornton, Taylor, Downs & Becker, Defendants-Appellees., 10 F.3d 626 (9th Cir. 1993)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Cir. - United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Reginald Charles Greene, Defendant-Appellant., 996 F.2d 312 (10th Cir. 1993)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Cir. - Ronald E. Stewart; John A. Gromala; John E. Donahue; Gerald R. Harland; Keith S. Humphreys; John D. Drake; Tom Dufour; Roger Sohnrey; Oklahoma Energy Investors; S & H Diversified; Sohnrey Bros., Plaintiffs, v. American International Oil & Gas Co. and James A. Ragland, Defendants. Meridian Reserve of Oklahoma, Inc., Successor By Merger To American International Oil & Gas Company, Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Liberty Exploration Company, Inc.; Robert Mills; Transworld Exploration Co.; A. Dale Smith; Orval C. White; Noble C. White; Noble Operating, Inc., Third-Party Defendants/Appellees., 845 F.2d 196 (9th Cir. 1988)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Cir. - Elisa Cazares, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Barber, Et Al., Defendants-Appellants., 959 F.2d 753 (9th Cir. 1992)

See all citations to this document

Text:

Stephen Yagman, Los Angeles, Cal., pro se.

Ramsey Clark, New York City, for plaintiffs.

Harry Schneider, Woodland Hills, Cal., Anthony A. De Corso, Mark E. Beck, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendants-appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

Before ANDERSON, PREGERSON, and WIGGINS, Circuit Judges.

The panel as constituted in the above case has voted to deny the petition for rehearing and to reject the suggestion for a rehearing en banc.

The full court has been advised of the suggestion for en banc rehearing, and no judge of the court has requested a vote on the suggestion for rehearing en banc. Fed.R.App.P. 35(b).

The petition for rehearing is denied and the suggestion for a rehearing en banc is rejected.

With this order, the slip opinion filed August 13, 1986, [796 F.2d 1165], is amended by adding a new footnote 26, on page 46 [p. 1188] at the end of the second sentence in the second full paragraph ending with "sanctioning authority," and renumbering footnote 26 at the end of the paragraph to be footnote 27, as follows:

"Nothing we have said in this opinion should be construed to impair in any way, nor to preclude, an award based on bad faith conduct under the court's inherent power, if found to be appropriate. See, e.g., Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752 [100 S.Ct. 2455, 65 L.Ed.2d 488] (1980)."

Sponsored Ads:

Try vLex for FREE for 3 days

Access legal information from United States including:

Constitutions
Forms and Contracts
Legal Books and Journals
Case Law
News and Business
Regulations
U.S. Code

Try vLex without any commitment for 3 days and see why you need it.

3

days of Free Access

Home / United States /

Case Law

vlex /