Case Name: INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Switzerland; United States Olympic Committee, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the United States of America, Piaintiffs-Cross-Defendants-Appellees, v. SAN FRANCISCO ARTS & ATHLETICS, a California corporation, and Thomas P. Waddell, Defendants-Cross-Plaintiffs-Appellants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1986-01-27
Citations: 789 F.2d 1319
Docket Number: Nos. 84-1759, 84-2528
Parties: INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Switzerland; United States Olympic Committee, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the United States of America, Piaintiffs-Cross-Defendants-Appellees, v. SAN FRANCISCO ARTS & ATHLETICS, a California corporation, and Thomas P. Waddell, Defendants-Cross-Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 789
Pages: 1319–1326

Head Matter:
INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Switzerland; United States Olympic Committee, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the United States of America, Piaintiffs-Cross-Defendants-Appellees, v. SAN FRANCISCO ARTS & ATHLETICS, a California corporation, and Thomas P. Waddell, Defendants-Cross-Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Nos. 84-1759, 84-2528.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Jan. 27, 1986.
As Amended May 22, 1986.
Dissenting Opinion May 28, 1986.
Before GOODWIN and WALLACE, Circuit Judges, and STEPHENS, District Judge.
The Honorable Albert Lee Stephens, Jr., Senior United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
Upon petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing en banc, the panel has voted to amend its opinion entered herein January 27, 1986, 781 F.2d 733 (9th Cir. 1986), as follows:
On page 737, column 1, line 11 from the bottom, insert footnote marker 1/ and the following text:
SFAA contends that our finding of no state action conflicts with Martin v. International Olympic Committee, 740 F.2d 670, 677 (9th Cir.1984). We disagree. The determination whether state action exists is entirely dependent on the unique facts of each case. Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority, 365 U.S. 715, 726 [81 S.Ct. 856, 862, 6 L.Ed.2d 45] (1961). In Martin, the government involvement was significantly more extensive than that found in this case.
On page 738, column 1, renumber the footnote to 2/.
The full court was advised of the suggestion for rehearing en banc. An active judge called for a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. The request for en banc consideration failed to receive a favorable majority of the votes of the active judges.
The petition for rehearing is denied and the suggestion for rehearing en banc is rejected.