Court Opinion

ID: 9444476
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 21:02:00.070677+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:29:53.048935
License: Public Domain

DENMAN, Chief Judge
(dissenting).
I dissent from the order of the court reading:
“Appellant Ly Shew filed on January 28, 1955, a document which is in effect a petition for rehearing and a petition for rehearing in banc. Treating the petition for rehearing in banc as a suggestion such as is contemplated by our Rule 23, the suggestion is denied. The petition for rehearing is also denied.
“The orders entered February 4, 1955, are hereby vacated. The mandate issued on February 10, 1955, is hereby recalled.”
Under our rule 23, reading so far as pertinent,
“AH petitions for rehearing shall be addressed to and be determined by the court as constituted in the original hearing.
“Should a majority of the court as so constituted grant a rehearing and either from a suggestion of a party or upon its own motion be of the opinion that the case should be reheard en banc, they shall so inform the Chief Judge. The Chief Judge shall thereupon convene the active judges of the court and the court shall thereupon determine whether the case shall be reheard en banc.”
the court, as a court, has no jurisdiction to consider the appellant’s suggestion for a rehearing en banc. This because the rule provides that it can be considered only where a petition for rehearing in division is “granted”. Here it was denied.
The division had properly so held in its order of February 4, 1955, as set aside. That order read:
“Ly Shew filed on January 28, 1955 a document which is, in effect, a petition for rehearing and a petition for rehearing en banc. The petition for rehearing is denied.
“Under our Rule 23, having denied the petition for rehearing, we are not required to consider the petition for rehearing en banc. The latter petition is therefore ordered dismissed.” (Emphasis supplied.)
The two judges, as judges and not as a court, have the right under 28 U.S. C.A. § 46(c) to move the court en banc for a rehearing there or against it. The Chief Judge made such a motion for a rehearing en banc but withdrew it, because Ly Shew had made such a motion. Since under our Rule 23, the division has no power to consider Ly Shew’s motion, he is entitled to have his motion considered by the court en banc, the Supreme Court so holding in Western Pacific Railroad case, 345 U.S. 247, at page 262, 73 S.Ct. 656, at page 664, 97 L.Ed. 986, in ordering the party’s motion for a rehearing en banc to be considered en banc after stating:
“Finally, it is essential to recognize that the question of whether a cause should be heard en banc is an issue which should be considered separate and apart from the question of whether there should be a rehearing by the division.”
Here under Rule 23 the division has no power to consider a motion for a rehearing en banc “separate and apart” from the consideration for rehearing by the division. It can only be considered in connection with the rehearing by division, that is, only when the division grants a rehearing by it.
AH this can be avoided and the court en banc relieved of considering petitions for a rehearing by parties by amending the above provisions of Rule 23 to read:
“A party’s suggestion for rehearing by a division or his suggestion for a rehearing en banc, shall be addressed to and be determined by the division in which the case is pending.
“Should a majority of the division in which the case is pending, either from a suggestion of a party or upon its own motion, be of the opinion that the case should be re*422heard en banc, they shall so inform the Chief Judge. The Chief Judge shall thereupon convene the active judges of the court and the court shall thereupon determine whether the case shall be reheard en banc.”