Stuart v. Walker, 09–CV–900.
| Decision Date | 08 July 2011 |
| Docket Number | No. 09–CV–900.,09–CV–900. |
| Citation | 30 A.3d 783 |
| Parties | Pamela B. STUART, Appellant,v.Barbara J. WALKER, Appellee,District of Columbia, Intervenor. |
| Court | D.C. Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HEREBEFORE: *WASHINGTON, Chief Judge; RUIZ, *GLICKMAN, ** KRAMER, FISHER, BLACKBURNE–RIGSBY, THOMPSON, and OBERLY, Associate Judges; *** REID, Associate Judge, Retired; * STEADMAN, Senior Judge.
Prior reports: D.C., 6 A.3d 1215.
On consideration of appellant's pro se petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc, intervenor's, District of Columbia, petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc, and appellee's opposition thereto, 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 has 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 October 28, 2010, 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 appellant and intervenor shall each file a brief within 45 days from the date of this order, appellee shall file a brief within 30 days after filing of appellant's and intervenor's briefs. Any responsive brief shall be filed within 10 days thereafter. Each party shall file ten copies of its briefs. These new briefs shall be specifically designed for consideration by and addressed to the en banc court and shall supersede all briefs previously filed in this appeal.
** Judge Kramer was recused from this case. She retired on May 1, 2011.
*** Judge Reid was an Associate Judge of the court at the time of argument. Her status changed to Associate Judge, Retired, on April 7, 2011.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Inst v. Mann
... ... was excluded from the final version of the bill following this court's decision in Stuart v. Walker , 6 A.3d 1215 (D.C. 2010), vacated , 30 A.3d 783 (D.C. 2011) (Mem.)., which held that ... ...
-
Biotechpharma, LLC v. Ludwig & Robinson, PLLC
... ... L & R makes many of the same claims raised in Stuart v. Walker, and the merits of that case were never resolved because the court split evenly on the ... ...
-
Woodroof v. Cunningham
...parameters of finality ... is ... beyond its authority”). However, we subsequently vacated that opinion, see Stuart v. Walker , 30 A.3d 783 (D.C. 2011) (en banc) (granting petitions for rehearing en banc), and, sitting en banc, we were equally divided “regarding the issue of jurisdiction.” ......
-
Sherrod v. Breitbart
...Stuart, 6 A.3d at 1217 n. 3. The D.C. Court of Appeals vacated the decision and granted a petition for rehearing en banc. Stuart v. Walker, 30 A.3d 783 (D.C.2011). The en banc court issued an unpublished judgment stating that “as the en banc court is equally divided regarding the issue of j......