Posted on 12/12/2014 5:53:56 AM PST by marktwain
The Chart above is said to have been produced by michellawyers.com. This is a screen shot of the pdf file. I appreciate the work that went into producing this chart, especially as the timing is subject to change "for good cause" by the En Banc Coordinator at every step of the process. I do not know if Judge Sidney Runyan Thomas is still the En Banc Coordinator. The chart is said to have been produced in 2010, four years ago.
Now that a Judge in the Ninth Circuit has called for the an En Banc review, sua sponte, this is the process that will be followed. The approximate time frames are these:
1. A minimum of 21 days for parties to file briefs.
2. A minimum of 21 days for Judges to circulate memorandum and consider the briefs.
3. A minimum of 14 days for all the judges to vote. A majority must vote in favor to call an En Banc review. Absence of a vote counts as a no vote.
The orders for response and briefs are dated 3 December, so the earliest that we will know if an En Banc review will be held is the 28th of January. My experience is that it is rare that times are compressed, but they are often extended in judicial proceedings.
If the Ninth Circuit refuses to hear Peruta en banc, then it is highly unlikely that anything short of an appeal to the Supreme Court will overturn the decision.
Here is a brief summation of the importance of Peruta for second amendment rights.
©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch
If the 2nd was defended a fraction of what the 1st is, we’d have no problem.
Being a pessimist, I predict they go enbanc, over turn Peruta (hey, it is the 9th Circus) and then SCOTUS declines the appeal because they don’t seem to care much about the 2A and how the lower courts are pissing all over Heller/McDonald.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sua_sponte
Sua sponte:
In law, sua sponte (Latin: “of his, her, its or their own accord”) or suo motu “on its own motion”[1] describes an act of authority taken without formal prompting from another party. The term is usually applied to actions by a judge taken without a prior motion or request from the parties. The form nostra sponte (”of our own accord”) is sometimes used by the court itself, when the action is taken by a multi-member court, such as an appellate court, rather than by a single judge (third parties describing such actions would still refer to them as ‘sua sponte’). While usually applied to actions of a court, the term may reasonably be applied to actions by government agencies and individuals acting in official capacity.
One situation in which a party might encourage a judge to move sua sponte occurs when that party is preserving a special appearance (usually to challenge jurisdiction), and therefore cannot make motions on its own behalf without making a general appearance. Common reasons for an action taken sua sponte are when the judge determines that the court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction or that the case should be moved to another judge because of a conflict of interest, even if all parties disagree.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/En_banc
En banc:
In law, an en banc session is a session where a case is heard before all the judges of a court – in other words, before the entire bench – rather than by a panel selected from them.[1][2] The equivalent terms in banc, in banco or in bank are also sometimes seen.
En banc is often used for unusually complex cases or cases considered to be of greater importance.[2] Appellate courts in the United States sometimes grant rehearing en banc to reconsider a decision of a panel of the court (generally consisting of only three judges) in which the case concerns a matter of exceptional public importance or the panel’s decision appears to conflict with a prior decision of the court.[3] In rarer instances, an appellate court will order hearing en banc as an initial matter instead of the panel hearing it first.
Some appellate courts, such as the Supreme Court of the United States and the highest courts of most U.S. states, do not sit in panels, but hear all of their cases en banc (with the exception of cases where a judge is ill or recused). This differs from most countries outside of the United States, where true en banc sessions of appellate courts are the exception or simply do not exist.
Thanks for posting those definitions. Perhaps I should have included them in the article.
It’s always good to throw those definitions in since most people aren’t lawyers and don’t speak Latin.
You are right, of course, but I try to keep articles short. When you have followed the case for months, it is easy to forget that most people have not, and have not picked up the vocabulary.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.