Religious Technology Center Church of Scientology of California Church of Scientology International, Plaintiffs-Counter-Defendants-Appellees v. Robin Scott, and Church of the New Civilization David Mayo, Defendants-Counter-Claimants-Appellants, Church of Spiritual Technology, Counter-Defendant-Appellee. Religious Technology Center Church of Scientology of California Church of Scientology International, Plaintiffs-Counter-Defendants-Appellants v. Robin Scott, Church of Spiritual Technology, Counter-Defendant, and Church of the New Civilization David Mayo, Defendants-Counter-Claimants-Appellees

Good Law
82 F.3d 423
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 5, 199694-55781California6,039 words

Opinion

Opinion

82 F.3d 423 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER; Church of Scientology of California; Church of Scientology International, Plaintiffs-counter-defendants-Appellees v. Robin SCOTT, et al., Defendants, and Church of the New Civilization; David Mayo, Defendants-counter-claimants-Appellants, Church of Spiritual Technology, Counter-defendant-Appellee. RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER; Church of Scientology of California; Church of Scientology International, Plaintiffs-counter-defendants-Appellants, v. Robin SCOTT, Defendant, Church of Spiritual Technology, Counter-defendant, and Church of the New Civilization; David Mayo, Defendants-counter-claimants-Appellees Nos. 94-55781, 94-55920. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Nov. 14, 1995. Decided April 11, 1996. As Amended on Denial of Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc July 5, 1996. * 1 Before: HALL and JOHN T. NOONAN, Jr., Circuit Judges, and SHUBB * , District Judge.…

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.