1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.3d
  4. 406 F.3d
  5. 406 F.3d 159 (2005)
 

LANDELL v. SORRELL

Docket Nos. 00-9159(L), 00-9180(CON), 00-9231(XAP), 00-9239(XAP), 00-9240(XAP).

406 F.3d 159 (2005)

Marcella LANDELL, Plaintiff-Appellee, Donald R. Brunelle, Vermont Right to Life Committee, Inc., Political Committee, Neil Randall, George Kuusela, Steve Howard, Jeffrey A. Nelson, John Patch, Vermont Libertarian Party, Vermont Republican State Committee and Vermont Right to Life Committee-Fund for Independent Political Expenditures, Plaintiffs-Appellees-Cross-Appellants, v. William H. SORRELL, John T. Quinn, William Wright, Dale O. Gray, Lauren Bowerman, Vincent Illuzzi, James Hughes, George E. Rice, Joel W. Page, James D. McNight, Keith W. Flynn, James P. Mongeon, Terry Trono, Dan Davis, Robert L. Sand and Deborah L. Markowitz, Defendants-Appellants-Cross-Appellees, Vermont Public Interest Research Group, League of Women Voters of Vermont, Rural Vermont, Vermont Older Women's League, Vermont Alliance of Conservation Voters, Mike Fiorillo, Marion Grey, Phil Hoff, Frank Huard, Karen Kitzmiller, Marion Milne, Daryl Pillsbury, Elizabeth Ready, Nancy Rice, Cheryl Rivers and Maria Thompson, Intervenors-Defendants-Appellants-Cross-Appellees.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

As Amended April 20, 2005.

As Amended May 11, 2005.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

James Bopp, Jr., Esq., Bopp, Coleson & Bostrom, Terre Haute, IN, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Joshua Ross Diamond, Esq., Diamond & Robinson, Montpelier, VT, for Plaintiffs-Appellees-Cross-Appellants.

Peter F. Welch, Esq., Welch, Graham & Manby, Burlington, VT, for Intervenors-Defendants-Appellants-Cross-Appellees.

Timothy Bert Tomasi, Esq., Attorney General's Office State of Vermont, Montpelier, VT, for Defendants-Appellants-Cross-Appellees.

ORDER

Plaintiff-appellee and plaintiffs-appellees-cross-appellants filed a petition for rehearing with request for rehearing en banc from the amended opinion of the panel filed on August 18, 2004. A poll on whether to rehear the case en banc was conducted among the active judges of the court upon the request of an active judge of the court. Because a majority of the court's active judges voted to deny rehearing en banc, rehearing en banc was DENIED...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

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.

Citing Cases