Case Name: John V. FRANK; Marco Sommerville; John W. Valle; Robert G. Konstand; Gerald Holland; Nancy Heslop; Charles Walker, Plaintiffs-Appellees/Cross-Appellants, v. CITY OF AKRON, Defendant-Appellee, Bruce Kilby; Mike Parsons; Patricia Longville; Gregory D. Coleridge; the Yes on 11 Campaign, Intervenors-Appellants/Cross-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-09-09
Citations: 303 F.3d 752
Docket Number: Nos. 00-3050, 00-3070
Parties: John V. FRANK; Marco Sommerville; John W. Valle; Robert G. Konstand; Gerald Holland; Nancy Heslop; Charles Walker, Plaintiffs-Appellees/Cross-Appellants, v. CITY OF AKRON, Defendant-Appellee, Bruce Kilby; Mike Parsons; Patricia Longville; Gregory D. Coleridge; the Yes on 11 Campaign, Intervenors-Appellants/Cross-Appellees.
Judges: Before: MERRITT, CLAY and GILMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 303
Pages: 752–755

Head Matter:
John V. FRANK; Marco Sommerville; John W. Valle; Robert G. Konstand; Gerald Holland; Nancy Heslop; Charles Walker, Plaintiffs-Appellees/Cross-Appellants, v. CITY OF AKRON, Defendant-Appellee, Bruce Kilby; Mike Parsons; Patricia Longville; Gregory D. Coleridge; the Yes on 11 Campaign, Intervenors-Appellants/Cross-Appellees.
Nos. 00-3050, 00-3070.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Sept. 9, 2002.
Robert M. Gippin (argued and briefed), Karen Kelly Grasso (briefed), Thompson Hine, Cleveland, OH, for Plaintiffs-Appel-lees/Cross-Appellants.
Cheri B. Cunningham (argued and briefed), Max Rothal (briefed), City of Akron, Department of Law, Akron, OH, for Defendanb-Appellee.
Brian J. Williams (argued and briefed), Akron, OH, Warner D. Mendenhall (briefed), Law Office of Warner Menden-hall, Akron, OH, for Intervenors-Appel-lants/Cross-Appellees.
Before: MERRITT, CLAY and GILMAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
AMENDED ORDER
The court having received a petition for rehearing en banc, and the petition having been circulated not only to the original panel members but also to all other active judges of this court, and less than a majority of the judges having favored the suggestion, the petition for rehearing has been referred to the original panel.
The panel has further reviewed the petition for rehearing and concludes that the issues raised in the petition were fully considered upon the original submission and decision of the cases. Accordingly, the petition is denied.