ALDF v. FDA
|Plaintiff - Appellant,:
||ANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND
|Defendant - Appellee,:
||FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
||October 23, 2013
||U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
|Nature of Suit:
||Freedom of Information Act of 1974
We have the following opinions for this case:
Access additional case information on PACER
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|September 2, 2016
Filed per curiam opinion (SIDNEY R. THOMAS, STEPHEN REINHARDT, ALEX KOZINSKI, RONALD M. GOULD, RICHARD A. PAEZ, RICHARD C. TALLMAN, JAY S. BYBEE, MILAN D. SMITH, JR., MORGAN B. CHRISTEN, JACQUELINE H. NGUYEN and JOHN B. OWENS)We confine our en banc consideration to the question of controlling circuit precedent. We decline as an en banc court to reach any other issue presented by the parties. The threejudge panel that heard the appeal was bound by the standard articulated in Church of Scientology and issued its opinion based on that assumption. In issuing our order granting rehearing en banc, we declared that the three-judge panel opinion should not be cited as precedent by or to any court of the Ninth Circuit. Animal Legal Def. Fund v. FDA, F.3d , No. 13-17131, 2016 WL 4120696 (9th Cir. Aug. 3, 2016). With this correction of our precedent, en banc proceedings with respect to this case are terminated, and we return control of the case to the three-judge panel. The panel will resolve the merits issues in this case and will issue a new or an amended opinion.3 REMANDED. 
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.
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?