Case ID: f3d_214/html/0179-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam TATEL, Circuit Judge,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Patricia KIDD, Appellant, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Appellees.
    Nos. 98-7075 & 98-7100.
    United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
    Filed On: June 2, 2000.
    BEFORE: EDWARDS, Chief Judge; SILBERMAN, WILLIAMS, GINSBURG, SENTELLE, HENDERSON, RANDOLPH, ROGERS, TATEL and GARLAND, Circuit Judges.
   Chief Judge EDWARDS and Circuit Judges SENTELLE, TATEL and GARLAND would grant the petition.

A statement of Circuit Judge TATEL, dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc, joined by Chief Judge EDWARDS and Circuit Judges SENTELLE and GARLAND, is attached.

Circuit Judge ROGERS did not participate in this matter.

ORDER

Per Curiam

The petition for rehearing en banc of amicus curiae and the response thereto have been circulated to the full court. The taking of a vote was requested. Thereafter, a majority of the judges of the couit in regular active service did not vote in favor of the petition. Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is

ORDERED that the petition be denied.

TATEL, Circuit Judge,

with whom EDWARDS, Chief Judge, and SENTELLE and GARLAND, Circuit Judges, join,

dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc:

In my view, this case raises a “question of exceptional importance” because the panel decision will produce precisely the kind of uncertainty and potential loss of appeal rights that Rule 58 was intended to prevent. I trust, however, that our district court colleagues will recognize that there is no disagreement on the panel that the simplest solution is for them to instruct the Clerk of Court to issue judgments adhering to Model Forms 31 and 32. By doing so, they will provide the certainty Rule 58 demands, prevent accidental loss of appeal rights, and. ensure that this court will never again have to address this issue. See Kidd v. District of Columbia, 206 F.3d 35, 41 (D.C.Cir.2000); id. at 44 (Tatel, J., dissenting).