Robert Stevens, et al v. Corelogic, Inc.
| ROBERT STEVENS and STEVEN VANDEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated |
| CORELOGIC, INC., a Delaware Corporation |
| 16-56089 |
| August 1, 2016 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other Statutory Actions |
Opinions
We have the following opinions for this case:
| Description |
|---|
 Stevens v. CoreLogic, Inc.
|
|
ROBERT STEVENS V. CORELOGIC, INC.
|
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
9030233100
Filed order and amended opinion (A. WALLACE TASHIMA, MARSHA S. BERZON and ROBERT E. PAYNE).The panel has unanimously voted to deny Appellants petition for panel rehearing. Judge Berzon has voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc. Judge Payne and Judge Tashima recommend denial of the petition for rehearing en banc. The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc, and no judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. Fed. R. App. P. 35. The petition for panel rehearing is denied and the petition for rehearing en banc is rejected. The opinion is amended as follows: On page 11 of the slip opinion, or had reasonable grounds to be aware is inserted after that the defendant was aware. Appellants motion to take judicial notice is denied as moot. [10966499]
|
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.
