Doe v. Unocal Corp.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Doe v. Unocal Corp., 395 F.3d 978 (9th Cir. 2003)
2003 Daily Journal DAR 1815; 161 Oil & Gas Rep. 670; 2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1388; 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 2716; 2003 WL 359787

Doe v. Unocal Corp.

Opinion of the Court

ORDER

Upon the vote of a majority of nonre-cused regular active judges of this court,1 *979it is ordered that this case be reheard by the en banc court pursuant to Circuit Rule 35-3. The three-judge panel opinion shall not be cited as precedent by or to this court or any district court of the Ninth Circuit, except to the extent adopted by the en banc court.

. Judges Wardlaw, Paez and Berzon were recused.

Reference

Full Case Name
John DOE I, individually & as Administrator of the Estate of his child Baby Doe I, & on behalf of all others similarly situated Jane Doe I, on behalf of herself, as Administratrix of the Estate of her child Baby Doe I, & on behalf of all others similarly situated John Doe II John Doe III John Doe IV John Doe V Jane Doe II Jane Doe III John Doe VI John Doe VII John Doe VIII John Doe IX John Doe X John Doe XI, on behalf of themselves & all others similarly situated & Louisa Benson on behalf of herself & the general public v. UNOCAL CORPORATION, a California Corporation Total S.A., a Foreign Corporation John Imle, an individual Roger C. Beach, an individual, Defendants-Appellees John Roe III John Roe VII John Roe VIII John Roe X v. Unocal Corporation Union Oil Company Of California
Cited By
10 cases
Status
Published