Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Lanric Hyland, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Roy L. Wonder, Supervising Judge, Juvenile Court, Superiorcourt of the City and County of San Francisco, Individuallyand in His Official Capacity; Daniel M. Hanlon, Presidingjudge, Superior Court of the City and County of Sanfrancisco, Individually and in His Official Capacity;dennis Sweeney, Chief Probation Officer, San Franciscojuvenile Probation Department, Individually and in Hisofficial Capacity; Fred Jordan, Chief Probation Officer,san Francisco Juvenile Probation Department, Individuallyand in His Official Capacity; Stephen La Plante, Director,juvenile Hall, Individually and in His Official Capacity,defendants-appellees
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. - 127 F.3d 1135
Oct. 6, 1997
Prior report: 117 F.3d 405.
Before: SNEED, BOOCHEVER, AND THOMPSON, Circuit Judges.
The opinion in the above-entitled case, filed June 25, 1997, is amended as follows:
At Slip op. pg. 7353 [117 F.3d at 411, left column, second full paragraph], at the end of the paragraph numbered , change the "." to a "," and add "and the Navy officer had qualified immunity." Delete the following sentence at the start of the next paragraph, "That analysis applies here."
At Slip op. pg. 7355 [117 F.3d at 412, left column, second full paragraph], on the second line of the runover paragraph, change the words "found a First Amendment violation on" to "applied a first amendment analysis to."
With the opinion thus amended, the panel has unanimously voted to deny the petition for rehearing. Judge Thompson has voted to reject the suggestion for rehearing en banc and Judges Sneed and Boochever so recommend. The full court has been advised of the suggestion for rehearing en banc and no active judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. Fed.R.App. 35.
The petition for rehearing is DENIED and the suggestion for rehearing en banc is REJECTED.