James Hardy v. Michael Martel

James Hardy v. Michael Martel

Petitioner - Appellant,:	JAMES EDWARD HARDY
Respondent - Appellee,:	MICHAEL MARTEL
Case Number:	13-56289
Filed:	July 23, 2013
Court:	U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Nature of Suit:	Habeas Corpus

Opinions

We have the following opinions for this case:

Date Filed	Description
August 11, 2016	Hardy v. Chappell
January 27, 2017	JAMES HARDY V. KEVIN CHAPPELL, WARDEN

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
January 27, 2017	Filing 9028728132 Filed order and amended opinion (HARRY PREGERSON, CONSUELO M. CALLAHAN and STANLEY ALLEN BASTIAN). (Judge CTB dissenting from Order) Amending Disposition Opinion REVERSED AND REMANDED; The opinion filed on August 11, 2016 is amended as follows: SEE ORDER FOR FULL TEXT) Judges Pregerson and Bastian have voted to deny the petition for panel rehearing and have recommended denying the petition for rehearing en banc. Judge Callahan has voted to grant the petition for panel rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc. The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en banc. A judge requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. The matter failed to receive a majority of votes of the nonrecused active judges in favor of en banc consideration. Fed. R. App. P. 35. The petition for panel rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. No future petitions for rehearing will be entertained. [10282312]

Date Filed

Document Text

January 27, 2017

Filing 9028728132 Filed order and amended opinion (HARRY PREGERSON, CONSUELO M. CALLAHAN and STANLEY ALLEN BASTIAN). (Judge CTB dissenting from Order) Amending Disposition Opinion REVERSED AND REMANDED; The opinion filed on August 11, 2016 is amended as follows: SEE ORDER FOR FULL TEXT) Judges Pregerson and Bastian have voted to deny the petition for panel rehearing and have recommended denying the petition for rehearing en banc. Judge Callahan has voted to grant the petition for panel rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc. The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en banc. A judge requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. The matter failed to receive a majority of votes of the nonrecused active judges in favor of en banc consideration. Fed. R. App. P. 35. The petition for panel rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. No future petitions for rehearing will be entertained. [10282312]

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: James Hardy v. Michael Martel
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner - appellant,: JAMES EDWARD HARDY
Represented By:	James Edward Hardy
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 - appellee,: MICHAEL MARTEL
Represented By:	Colleen Mary Tiedemann
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?