“[A]l-though purporting to apply clear error review, as required by Supreme Court and circuit precedents, the panel improperly reviewed the district court’s factual findings de novo, and thereby erroneously substituted the panel’s own fact finding for that of the district court.”
How later courts described this case
- “[A]l-though purporting to apply clear error review, as required by Supreme Court and circuit precedents, the panel improperly reviewed the district court’s factual findings de novo, and thereby erroneously substituted the panel’s own fact finding for that of the district court.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND REHEARING EN BANC
EDITH H. JONES, Circuit Judge:
The Petition for Rehearing is DENIED. Judge Dennis dissents from the court’s denial of rehearing en banc and his dissent is attached.
The court having been polled at the request of one of its members, and a majority of the judges who are in regular active service and not disqualified not having voted in favor (Fed. R.App. P. 85 and 5th Cir. R. 35), the Petition for Rehearing En Banc is DENIED.
In the en banc poll, 3 judges voted in favor of rehearing (Judges Dennis, Graves, and Costa) and 12 judges voted against rehearing (Chief Judge Stewart and Judges Jolly, Davis, Jones, Smith, Clement, Prado, Owen, Elrod, Southwick, Haynes, and Higginson).