From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pacemaker Diagnostic Clinic v. Instromedix

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Oct 20, 1983
718 F.2d 971 (9th Cir. 1983)

Opinion

Nos. 82-3152, 82-3182.

October 20, 1983.

J. Pierre Kolisch, Kolisch, Hartwell, Dickinson Stuart, Portland, Or., for defendant-appellee, cross-appellant.

Sherman O. Parrett, Cushman, Darby Cushman, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff-appellant, cross-appellee.

Before BROWNING, Chief Judge, CHOY, GOODWIN, WALLACE, SNEED, KENNEDY, ANDERSON, HUG, TANG, SKOPIL, SCHROEDER, FLETCHER, FARRIS, PREGERSON, ALARCON, POOLE, FERGUSON, NELSON, CANBY, BOOCHEVER, NORRIS, and REINHARDT, Circuit Judges.


ORDER

Upon the vote of a majority of the regular active judges of this court, it is ordered that this case be reheard by an en banc panel of the court pursuant to Rule 25 of the Rules of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The previous three-judge panel assignment, 712 F.2d 1305 (9th Cir. 1983) is withdrawn.

Oral argument in the above case will be held in San Francisco, on Tuesday, November 15, 1983, at 1:30 p.m.


Summaries of

Pacemaker Diagnostic Clinic v. Instromedix

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Oct 20, 1983
718 F.2d 971 (9th Cir. 1983)
Case details for

Pacemaker Diagnostic Clinic v. Instromedix

Case Details

Full title:PACEMAKER DIAGNOSTIC CLINIC OF AMERICA, INC., A TENNESSEE CORPORATION…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Oct 20, 1983

Citations

718 F.2d 971 (9th Cir. 1983)

Citing Cases

Williams v. Mussomelli

V. 1981), the statute authorizing trial by a magistrate on consent of the parties. Pacemaker Diagnostic…

Wharton-Thomas v. United States

A panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that section 636(c) is…