John DOE I, individually & as Administrator of the Estate of his deceased child Baby Doe I, & on behalf of all others similarly situated; Jane Doe I, on behalf of herself, as Adminstratrix of the Estate of her deceased child Baby Doe I, & on behalf of all others similarly situated; John Doe II; John Doe III; John Doe IV; John Doe V; Jane Doe II; Jane Doe III; John Doe VI; John Doe VII; John Doe VIII; John Doe IX; John Doe X; John Doe XI, on behalf of themselves & all others similarly situated & Louisa Benson on behalf of herself & the general public, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
UNOCAL CORPORATION, a California Corporation; Total S.A., a Foreign Corporation; John Imle, an individual; Roger C. Beach, an individual, Defendants-Appellees.
John Roe III; John Roe VII; John Roe VIII; John Roe X, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
Unocal Corporation; Union Oil Company Of California, Defendants-Appellees.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
February 14, 2003.
February 14, 2003.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Julie Shaprio, Tacoma, WA, Anne Richardson, Hadsell & Stormer, Pasadena, CA, Jennifer Green, New York, NY, Judith Brown Chomsky, Elkins Park, PA, Paul L. Hoffman, Schonbrun, DeSimone, Seplow, Harris and Hoffman, LLP, Venice, CA, Katharine J. Redford, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Edwin V. Woodsome, Jr., Howrey, Simon, Arnold & White, LLP, Peter H. Mason, Fulbright & Jaworski, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Christhoper E. Krafchak, Krafchak & Associates, Los Angeles, CA, Terry Collingsworth, Washington, DC, Joseph C. Kohn, Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C., Philadelphia, PA, Cristobal Bonifaz, Law Offices of Cristobal Bonifaz, Amherst, MA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Daniel P. Collins, Munger, Tolles & Olson, Los Angeles, CA, Kristin L. Myles, Munger, Tolles & Olson, LLP, San Francisco, CA, Edwin V. Woodsome, Jr., Howrey, Simon, Arnold & White, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
ORDER
Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused regular active judges of this court,1 it is ordered that this case be reheard by the en banc court pursuant to Circuit Rule 35-3. The three-judge panel opinion shall not be cited as precedent by or to this court or any district court of the Ninth Circuit, except to the extent adopted by the...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting Sign on now to see your case. Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
Updated daily.
Uncompromising quality.
Complete, Accurate, Current.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full
text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the
full text of the citing case.
