Bricker

Bricker v. Rockwell International Corp.

Good Law
22 F.3d 871·1993 WL 632025
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOctober 25, 1993No. 91-36153California4,591 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Canby, J.

Opinion by Judge CANBY.

ORDER

The opinion filed October 25, 1993 is amended by inserting the following passage at p. 879, immediately before the section heading entitled “Nondelegation Doctrine”:

The panel has voted to deny the petition for rehearing and to reject the suggestion for a rehearing en banc.

The full court has been advised of the suggestion for an en banc rehearing, and no judge of the court has requested a vote on the suggestion for rehearing en banc. Fed. RApp.P. 35(b).

The petition for rehearing is denied and the suggestion for a rehearing en banc is rejected.

OPINION

Edwin and Cynthia Bricker appeal the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the defendants in the Brickers’ action alleging violations of their federal constitutional rights and various tort claims under Washington state law. We review de novo, Saul v. United States, 928 F.2d 829, 832 (9th Cir.1991), and we affirm.

I. FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In August 1990, Edwin Bricker and his wife Cynthia filed this action against Rockwell Hanford Operations, a division of Rockwell International Corporation (“Rockwell”), Westinghouse Electric Corporation, and Westinghouse Hanford Company…

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.