1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.3d
  4. 924 F.3d
  5. 924 F.3d 309 (2019)
 

GUERTIN v. MICHIGAN

Nos. 17-1699/1745.

924 F.3d 309 (2019)

Shari GUERTIN, individually and as next friend of her child, E.B., a minor; Diogenes Muse-Cleveland, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. State of MICHIGAN, et al., Defendants, City of Flint, Michigan, Howard Croft, Darnell Earley, and Gerald Ambrose (17-1699); Liane Shekter-Smith, Daniel Wyant, Stephen Busch, Michael Prysby, and Bradley Wurfel (17-1745), Defendants-Appellants.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Decided and Filed: May 16, 2019.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC: Frederick A. Berg, Jr. , Sheldon H. Klein , BUTZEL LONG, P.C., Detroit, Michigan, Alexander S. Rusek , WHITE LAW PLLC, Okemos, Michigan, William Y. Kim , CITY OF FLINT, Flint, Michigan, Barry A. Wolf , LAW OFFICE OF BARRY A. WOLF PLLC, Flint, Michigan, for Appellants in 17-1699. John J. Bursch , BURSCH LAW PLLC, Caledonia, Michigan, Philip A. Grashoff, Jr. , KOTZ SANGSTER WYSOCKI P.C., Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, Thaddeus E. Morgan , Michael H. Perry , FRASER TREBILCOCK, Lansing, Michigan, Charles E. Barbieri , Allison M. Collins , FOSTER, SWIFT, COLLINS & SMITH, P.C., Lansing, Michigan, Jay M. Berger , Michael J. Pattwell , CLARK HILL PLC, Lansing, Michigan, for Appellants in 17-1745. ON RESPONSE: Steven Hart , HART, McLAUGHLIN & ELDRIDGE, LLC, Chicago, Illinois, John Sawin , SAWIN LAW FIRM, LTD., Chicago, Illinois, Paul T. Geske , McGUIRE LAW, P.C., Chicago, Illinois, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Samuel R. Bagenstos , Ann Arbor, Michigan, for Amici Curiae.

GIBBONS, J. (pg. 310), delivered a separate concurring opinion in which STRANCH, J., joined. SUTTON, J. (pp. 310-15), delivered a separate concurring opinion in which BUSH, J., joined. KETHLEDGE, J. (pp. 315-17), delivered a separate dissenting opinion in which THAPAR, LARSEN, NALBANDIAN, and MURPHY, JJ., joined.

ORDER

The court received petitions for rehearing en banc. The original panel has reviewed the petitions for rehearing and concludes that the issues raised in the petitions were fully considered upon the original submission and decision. The petitions then were circulated to the full court.1 Less than a majority of the judges voted in favor of rehearing en banc.

Therefore, the petitions are denied.

CONCURRENCE

...

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