# Stupak-Thrall v. United States

> Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · July 23, 1996 · 89 F.3d 1269

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6940225

## Case

- **Full name:** Kathy STUPAK-THRALL, Michael A. Gajewski, and Bodil Gajewski v. UNITED STATES of America and Daniel R. Glickman, Secretary of Agriculture, individually and in his official capacity
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
- **Decided:** July 23, 1996
- **Citations:** 89 F.3d 1269; 1996 WL 408698
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Judges:** Batchelder, Boggs, Brown, Cole, Daughtrey, Kennedy, Martin, Merritt, Moore, Nelson, Norris, Ryan, Siler, Suhrheinrich
- **Cited by:** 25 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6940225

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- declining to hear issue urged for first time to panel in reply brief and reasserted in supplementary brief to court en banc; otherwise party raising argument on en banc rehearing would "be allowed to deprive the panel of the ability to address the issue first"
- acknowledging, and agreeing with, the concurrence’s opinion that “§ 480 does provide for concurrent federal-state jurisdiction”

## Opinion text

ORDER
The en banc court is equally divided in this case. Seven members favor affirmance of the judgment of the District Court, and seven favor reversal. Hence, as is customary under such circumstances, the judgment of the District Court is affirmed by an equally divided vote.
The mandate will not issue for fourteen (14) days from the date of this order so that members of the court may file any separate opinions they wish to. *
This Order was originally filed on June 24, 1996, and is now being reissued for full-text publication with a separate concurring opinion by Judge MOORE (pp. 1269-1272), in which Chief Judge MERRITT and Judge DAUGHTREY joined, and a separate dissenting opinion by Judge BOGGS (pp. 1272-1306), in which Judges NORRIS, SUHRHEINRICH, and BATCHELDER joined.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6940225. Public record. Not legal advice.