reversing the district court’s order to grant the defendant’s motion for bail partly because a potentially three-day extradition hearing was not unusually long and because the court did “not believe the-normal passage of time inherent in the litigation process constitutes a ‘special circumstance’”
How later courts described this case
- reversing the district court’s order to grant the defendant’s motion for bail partly because a potentially three-day extradition hearing was not unusually long and because the court did “not believe the-normal passage of time inherent in the litigation process constitutes a ‘special circumstance’”
- specifically declining to hold conflicting substantive state laws destroy commonality while holding same conflicts torpedo predominance requirement
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
SUR PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING WITH SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING IN BANC
June 27, 1996
The petitions of plaintiffs/appellees Robert A. Georgine, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, and of defendants/appellees Amehem Products, Inc. Ltd. (other than GAF Corporation) for rehearing having been submitted to the judges who participated in the decision of this Court and to all the other available circuit judges in active service, and no judge who concurred in the decision having asked for rehearing, and a majority of the circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service not having voted for rehearing by the court in banc, the petition for rehearing is DENIED.
Judge SCIRICA would grant rehearing.