Your World of Legal Intelligence
 United States | 1-800-335-6202

Rand v. Rowland

Document Cited authorities 1 Cited in 4 Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Decision Date04 September 1997
Docket NumberNo. 95-15428,95-15428
PartiesLee A. RAND, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James ROWLAND; Nadim Khoury, M.D.; William Bunnell; Roy Lee Johnson; Leo R. Estes, Defendants-Appellees.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Page 39

122 F.3d 39

Lee A. RAND, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James ROWLAND; Nadim Khoury, M.D.; William Bunnell; Roy Lee Johnson; Leo R. Estes, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 95-15428.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Sept. 4, 1997.

Before: HUG, Chief Judge.

Prior report: 113 F.3d 1520.

Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused regular active judges of this court, it is ordered that this case be reheard by the en banc court pursuant to Circuit Rule 35-3.

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Rand v. Rowland
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • August 27, 1998
    ...See Rand, 113 F.3d at 1522-23. We then took the case en banc to review the validity and application of the Klingele rule. Rand v. Rowland, 122 F.3d 39 (9th Cir.1997). II. DISCUSSION A. The Fair Notice Requirement Historical In reviewing the fair notice requirement, we are cognizant that we ......
  • Gotcher v. Wood, 94-35484
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • September 11, 1997

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT