Zamsky v. Hansell

Good Law
91 Daily Journal DAR 5750·933 F.2d 677·1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 9889·91 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3586
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 17, 199189-35281California6,430 words

Opinion

Opinion

933 F.2d 677 59 USLW 2723 Steven A. ZAMSKY; General Partner, dba the Ponderosa of Klamath, Ltd., an Oregon limited partnership, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Stafford HANSELL; Lorin Jacobs; Anne Squier; John Dowers; James F. Ross; Thomas Walsh; Roger Hamlin; Clyde Hamstreet, Defendants-Appellees. No. 89-35281. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted May 7, 1990. Memorandum Filed Aug. 10, 1990. Memorandum Withdrawn May 17, 1991. Order and Opinion Filed May 17, 1991. Dennis H. Elliott, Elliott & Freedman, Portland, Or., for the plaintiff-appellant. John T. Bagg, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, Or., for the defendants-appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. Before BROWNING, ALARCON and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges. ORDER The petition for rehearing is granted. The memorandum disposition, filed August 10, 1990, 911 F.2d 740 , is withdrawn, and the attached per curiam opinion is filed in its place. The full court has been advised of the suggestion for en banc rehearing and no judge has requested a vote thereon. The suggestion for rehearing en banc is therefore rejected. Fed.R.App.P. 35(b). OPINION PER CURIAM: 1 Today we address…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.