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
Jack Cohen, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarlysituated, Plaintiff-appellee,andanthony Maniscalco, Ii, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Resolution Trust Corporation, in Its Capacity As Receiverfor Imperial Savings Association, an Insureddepository Institution, A.k.a. Imperialfederal Savings Association,defendant-appellee.jack Cohen, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarlysituated; Mark Rozells, Plaintiffs-appellees,andmichael Lea, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Resolution Trust Corporation, in Its Capacity As Receiverfor Imperial Savings Association, an Insureddepository Institution, A.k.a. Imperialfederal Savings Association,defendant-appellee
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. - 72 F.3d 686
Filed Jan. 2, 1996
Before: WALLACE, Chief Judge, KOZINSKI and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
Appellants Anthony Maniscalco and Michael Lea, members of a class action brought by Jack Cohen and other employees of Imperial Savings Association against the Resolution Trust Corporation, filed a motion to dismiss their appeals, including their pending petitions for rehearing and a suggestion for rehearing en banc. Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, the appellants' motion is granted. Fed.R.App.P. 42(b).
Under Blair v. Shanahan, 38 F.3d 1514, 1521 (9th Cir.1994), we vacate our opinion, 61 F.3d 725 (9th Cir.1995), and remand to the district court for proceedings consistent with Blair.
APPEAL DISMISSED AND OPINION VACATED. CASE REMANDED TO DISTRICT COURT.