Case Name: James P. FREE, Jr., Petitioner-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, v. Howard A. PETERS, III, et al., Respondents-Appellants/Cross-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1994-03-31
Citations: 19 F.3d 389
Docket Number: Nos. 92-3618, 92-3711 and 93-2517
Parties: James P. FREE, Jr., Petitioner-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, v. Howard A. PETERS, III, et al., Respondents-Appellants/Cross-Appellees.
Judges: Before POSNER, Chief Judge, and CUMMINGS, BAUER, CUDAHY, COFFEY, FLAUM, EASTERBROOK, RIPPLE, MANION, KANNE, and ROVNER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 19
Pages: 389–392

Head Matter:
James P. FREE, Jr., Petitioner-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, v. Howard A. PETERS, III, et al., Respondents-Appellants/Cross-Appellees.
Nos. 92-3618, 92-3711 and 93-2517.
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 25, 1994.
Decided March 31, 1994.
Kimball R. Anderson, Bruce R. Braun, and Gregg D. Reisman, Winston & Strawn, Chicago, IL, for James P. Free, Jr., petitioner.
Arleen C. Anderson, Paula Giroux, Asst. Attys. Gen., Vincenzo Chimera, Richard Schwind, Office of the Atty. Gen., Steven J. Ziek, Terence M. Madzen, Asst. Atty. Gen., Office of the Atty. Gen., Criminal Appeals Div., and Jack Donatelli, Asst. Atty. Gen., Office of U.S. Atty., Civ. Div., Appellate Section, Chicago, IL, for Howard A. Peters, III, respondent.
Arleen C. Anderson, Paula Giroux, Asst. Attys. Gen., Vincenzo Chimera, Richard Schwind, Office of the Atty. Gen., Steven J. Zick, Office of the Atty. Gen., Cr. Appeals Div. and Jack Donatelli, Asst. Atty. Gen., Office of the Atty. Gen., Civ. Div., Appellate Section, Chicago, IL, for Michael P. Lane and Neil F. Hartigan, respondents.
Cynthia Grant Bowman, Northwestern University Legal Clinic, David J. Bradford, Locke E. Bowman, III, and Kathleen M. Bañar, University of Chicago Law School, Chicago, IL, for MacArthur Justice Center, amicus curiae.
Before POSNER, Chief Judge, and CUMMINGS, BAUER, CUDAHY, COFFEY, FLAUM, EASTERBROOK, RIPPLE, MANION, KANNE, and ROVNER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
On January 18, 1994, petitioner-appel-lee/eross-appellant filed a petition for rehearing with a suggestion of rehearing en banc. The panel majority voted to deny rehearing, Judge Cudahy dissenting. A vote of the active members of the Court was requested on the suggestion of rehearing en banc, and a majority has voted to deny a rehearing en banc. The petition is therefore Denied.
Judges Cudahy, Ripple, and Rovner voted to grant the petition for rehearing en banc. A dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc follows.
Judge Flaum did not participate in the vote for rehearing en banc.