Court Opinion

ID: 9443803
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 19:31:02.43459+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:29:36.696807
License: Public Domain

DENMAN, Chief Judge
(concurring).
In concurring with this order in which, th ; Court of Appeals en banc divests itself of its jurisdiction of this appeal, it should be mad; clear that the question of a rehearing e 1 banc is to be considered de novo by the division consisting of Judges Healy, Byrne an I Fee. That that division has not yet considered the merits of the motion for such a rehearing en banc appears from that division’s refusal to consider that motion in the following language:
“Insofar as the petitions seek a re-. hearing .en banc, they are stricken as being without authority in law or in the rules or practice of this court. See Kronberg v. Hale, 9 Cir., 181 F.2d 767.”
This de'novo consideration may lead' to the conviction that, while it'is useless fer the same three judgqs themselves to rehear the case, nevertheless the case is of suci significance that it deserves the attention of the court en banc. This appears from the following language of the Supreme Court’s decision 73 S.Ct. 656, at page 664:
“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 a’nd aparf from the question of whether there should'be a rehearing'by the divi'-" sion. The three judges wlio decide ah appeal may be satisfied as to the correctness of their decision.' Yet, upon reflection, after fully hearing an appeal, they may come to believe that the case is of such significance to the full court that it deserves the attention of the full court.”
It should also be clear to the division tha t the court en banc ha§ returned the case t> the division without passing on or expressing any opinion on whether the following factors in the case are or are not sufficient to warrant a rehearing en banc. These factors are:
(a) That the case is described by the Supreme Court as “difficult and complicated litigation”, 73 S.Ct. at page 666, and that it is “as complicated as it is unique”, 73 S.Ct. at page 657. , •
(b) That the amount involved in. the case is stupendous, being $21,000,000., and that the issues are very intricate such as might invoke the pooled wisdom of all the circuit judges as stated in. the opinion of Mr. Justice Frankfurter 73 S.Ct. at page 666.
(c) That the Supreme Court deems this case so important that it granted certiorari on the merits as well as on the question of rehearings en banc.