In re Petition R.W.
Decision Date | 29 January 2014 |
Docket Number | 11–FS–1218,11–FS–1256,11–FS–1260.,Nos. 11–FS–1217,11–FS–1257,11–FS–1255,11–FS–1259,11–FS–1258,s. 11–FS–1217 |
Citation | 91 A.3d 1020 |
Court | D.C. Court of Appeals |
Parties | In re Petition of R.W. & A.W.; T.L., Appellant. In re TA.L.; A.H., Appellant. In re A.L.; A.H., Appellant. In re Petition of R.W. & A.W.; A.H., Appellant. In re Petition of E.A.; A.H. & E.A., Appellants. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HEREBEFORE: WASHINGTON,* Chief Judge; GLICKMAN, FISHER, BLACKBURNE–RIGSBY,*THOMPSON, BECKWITH, EASTERLY, and McLEESE, Associate Judges; and REID,* Senior Judge.
On consideration of the petitions for rehearing or rehearing en banc filed by appellees R.W. and A.W. and by the Guardian ad Litem for A.L. and T.L., it is
ORDERED by the merits division * that the petitions for rehearing are denied; and it appearing that the majority of the judges of this court have voted to grant the petitions for rehearing en banc, it is
FURTHER ORDERED that the petitions for rehearing en banc are granted and that the opinion and judgment of August 22, 2013, are hereby vacated. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall schedule this matter for argument before the court sitting en banc as soon as the calendar permits. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that appellants shall file new brief(s) within 40 days from the date of this order; appellees and the Guardian ad Litem shall file their brief(s) within 30 days from the date of service of appellants' brief(s); and any reply briefs shall be filed within 21 days after service of appellees' brief(s). The parties shall file ten copies of each brief. The briefs filed pursuant to this order shall be designed for consideration by and addressed to the en banc court and shall supersede all briefs previously filed in these appeals.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Ta.L.
...en banc, thereby vacating its original opinion in this case, In re Ta.L. , 75 A.3d 122 (D.C. 2013), vacated sub nom. In re R.W. , 91 A.3d 1020 (D.C. 2014), in part because this appeal raises serious concerns about our prior decision in In re K.M.T. , 795 A.2d 688 (D.C. 2002), where a divisi......
-
Little v. Dist. of Columbia Water
...91 A.3d 1020Archie LITTLE, Appellant,v.DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY, et al., Appellees.No. 12–CV–1812.District of Columbia Court of Appeals.Submitted Jan. 16, 2014.Decided May 29, [91 A.3d 1023]David A. Branch was on the brief for appellant.Grace E. Speights, Washington, D......