Jorge Baez-Sanchez v. Loretta Lynch

Jorge Baez-Sanchez v. Loretta Lynch

Petitioner:	JORGE BAEZ-SANCHEZ
Respondent:	LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General of the United States
Case Number:	16-3784
Filed:	October 27, 2016
Court:	U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit
Nature of Suit:	Other

Opinions

We have the following opinions for this case:

Date Filed	Description
July 10, 2017	Jorge Baez-Sanchez v. Jefferson B. Sessions III
October 6, 2017	Baez-Sanchez v. Sessions

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
October 6, 2017	Filing 703085760 Filed opinion of the court by Judge Easterbrook. The petition for review is GRANTED, the Board s decision is VACATED, and the matter is REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this opinion. William J. Bauer, Circuit Judge; Frank H. Easterbrook, Circuit Judge and David F. Hamilton, Circuit Judge. [6874442-1] [6874442] [16-3784]
July 10, 2017	Filing 703028664 Filed opinion of the court by Judge Wood. Both of the cases I have consolidated for purposes of this in-chambers opinion have inadequate jurisdictional statements. The briefs filed by respondent Sessions and appellee Air Line Pilots are STRICKEN. Each one must file a new brief within seven days of this order; the new brief must contain a jurisdictional statement that complies with all of the requirements of FRAP 28(b) and Circuit Rule 28(b), and if necessary, statements that comply with FRAP 28(a) and Circuit Rule 28(a). I hope that this opinion will prevent the same problems from continuing to arise. [6853076-1] [6853076] [16-3784, 17-1438]

Date Filed

Document Text

October 6, 2017

Filing 703085760 Filed opinion of the court by Judge Easterbrook. The petition for review is GRANTED, the Board s decision is VACATED, and the matter is REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this opinion. William J. Bauer, Circuit Judge; Frank H. Easterbrook, Circuit Judge and David F. Hamilton, Circuit Judge. [6874442-1] [6874442] [16-3784]

July 10, 2017

Filing 703028664 Filed opinion of the court by Judge Wood. Both of the cases I have consolidated for purposes of this in-chambers opinion have inadequate jurisdictional statements. The briefs filed by respondent Sessions and appellee Air Line Pilots are STRICKEN. Each one must file a new brief within seven days of this order; the new brief must contain a jurisdictional statement that complies with all of the requirements of FRAP 28(b) and Circuit Rule 28(b), and if necessary, statements that comply with FRAP 28(a) and Circuit Rule 28(a). I hope that this opinion will prevent the same problems from continuing to arise. [6853076-1] [6853076] [16-3784, 17-1438]

Access additional case information on PACER

Access the Case Summary and Docket Report to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Search for this case: Jorge Baez-Sanchez v. Loretta Lynch
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: JORGE BAEZ-SANCHEZ
Represented By:	Charles Roth
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Respondent: LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General of the United States
Represented By:	OIL
Represented By:	Robert Dale Tennyson
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?