Amy Hughes v. Andrew Kisela

Amy Hughes v. Andrew Kisela

Plaintiff - Appellant,:	AMY HUGHES
Defendant - Appellee,:	ANDREW KISELA, Corporal, 0203; individually and in his official capacity
Case Number:	14-15059
Filed:	January 14, 2014
Court:	U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Nature of Suit:	Other Civil Rights

Opinions

We have the following opinions for this case:

Date Filed	Description
November 28, 2016	Hughes v. Kisela
June 27, 2017	AMY HUGHES V. ANDREW KISELA
June 6, 2018	AMY HUGHES V. ANDREW KISELA

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
June 27, 2017	Filing 9029152324 Filed order and amended opinion (RONALD M. GOULD, MARSHA S. BERZON and WILLIAM K. SESSIONS, III). (Concurrence to Order by MSB, Dissent to Order by SSI. Opinion by Judge Sessions) (Amending Disposition Opinion REVERSED AND REMANDED.) The opinion filed November 28, 2016, is amended as follows: (SEE ORDER FOR FULL TEXT) No new Petition for Panel Rehearing or Petition for Rehearing en Banc will be entertained. Judges Gould and Berzon voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc, and Judge Sessions so recommended. 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 the votes of the nonrecused active judges in favor of en banc consideration. Fed. R. App. P. 35. The petition for rehearing en banc is DENIED. [10488766]

Date Filed

Document Text

June 27, 2017

Filing 9029152324 Filed order and amended opinion (RONALD M. GOULD, MARSHA S. BERZON and WILLIAM K. SESSIONS, III). (Concurrence to Order by MSB, Dissent to Order by SSI. Opinion by Judge Sessions) (Amending Disposition Opinion REVERSED AND REMANDED.) The opinion filed November 28, 2016, is amended as follows: (SEE ORDER FOR FULL TEXT) No new Petition for Panel Rehearing or Petition for Rehearing en Banc will be entertained. Judges Gould and Berzon voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc, and Judge Sessions so recommended. 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 the votes of the nonrecused active judges in favor of en banc consideration. Fed. R. App. P. 35. The petition for rehearing en banc is DENIED. [10488766]

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: Amy Hughes v. Andrew Kisela
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff - appellant,: AMY HUGHES
Represented By:	Amy Hughes
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 ]
Defendant - appellee,: ANDREW KISELA, Corporal, 0203; individually and in his official capacity
Represented By:	Paul Correa
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?