Rakovich v. Wade, s. 85-1529
| Decision Date | 25 August 1987 |
| Docket Number | 85-1530,Nos. 85-1529,s. 85-1529 |
| Citation | 850 F.2d 1179 |
| Parties | George RAKOVICH, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gregory WADE and Darryl Drake, Defendants-Appellants. Chief Judge. George RAKOVICH, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Chester KASS, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Before BAUER, Chief Judge, and CUMMINGS, WOOD, Jr., CUDAHY, POSNER, COFFEY, FLAUM, EASTERBROOK, RIPPLE, MANION and KANNE, Circuit Judges.
IT IS ORDERED that the aforesaid petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing en banc be, and the same is, hereby GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the panel opinion and the judgment entered May 22, 1987 are hereby VACATED. This case will be reheard en banc at the convenience of the court.
The decision of a majority of my brothers to vacate the panel decision and to set the case for argument en banc does, of course, require my respectful deference. I am constrained to point out, however, that, in taking this action, the court departs from the mandate of Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Rule 35 establishes specific criteria for en banc proceedings: "Such a hearing or rehearing is not favored and ordinarily will not be ordered except (1) when consideration by the full court is necessary to secure or maintain uniformity of its decisions, or (2) when the proceeding involves a question of exceptional importance."
This case meets neither of these criteria. It is a fact-specific adjudication of civil liability imposed by a jury verdict. In their petition for rehearing, the parties essentially ask that we set aside that verdict. They have raised no legal question of general importance which can be resolved, in a principled fashion, on the record before us. We must take the case as it was tried, not as it ought to have been tried.
Why, then, does the court take the extraordinary step of setting this case for rehearing en banc? The imposition of civil liability on police officers is not a pleasant situation. However, it does...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Burkes v. Klauser
...a clearly established constitutional right. Baxter v. DNR, 165 Wis.2d 298, 303, 477 N.W.2d 648 (Ct.App.1991); Rakovich v. Wade, 850 F.2d 1179, 1210, n. 22 (7th Cir.1987) (en banc), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 968, 109 S.Ct. 497, 102 L.Ed.2d 534 (1988); Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 10......
-
Rakovich v. Wade
...judgment May 22, 1987, ordering a new trial on damages alone. Rakovich v. Wade, 819 F.2d 1393 (7th Cir.1987). In an order dated August 25, 1987, 850 F.2d 1179, this court vacated the opinion and judgment and granted the petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing en banc.2 This is a......
-
Price v. City of Charlotte, N.C.
...1298, 1304 (7th Cir.1990); Rakovich v. Wade, 819 F.2d 1393, 1399 & n. 6 (7th Cir.) (Rakovich I) vacated on other grounds, 850 F.2d 1179 (7th Cir.1987) (en banc), on reh'g, 850 F.2d 1180 (7th Cir.) (Rakovich II ) (en banc), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 968, 109 S.Ct. 497, 102 L.Ed.2d 534 (1988); S......
-
Fann v. Brailey
...Rakovich v. Wade, 602 F.Supp. 1444 (E.D.Wisc.1985), aff'd in part and rev'd in part, 819 F.2d 1393 (7th Cir.1987), panel opinion vacated, 850 F.2d 1179, panel opinion reversed, 850 F.2d 1180 (7th Cir.1988), cert. den'd 488 U.S. 968, 109 S.Ct. 497, 102 L.Ed.2d 534 (1988). In that case, the f......