Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
General
Daphne Rayne MAHONE nee Daphne Rayne Winslow, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent
518 F.2d 554·United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·1975
Before ELY and WALLACE, Circuit Judges, and THOMPSON, District Judge.
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Daphne Rayne MAHONE nee Daphne Rayne Winslow, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.
No. 72-2326.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
May 30, 1975.
Honorable Gordon Thompson, Jr., United States District Judge, San Diego, California, sitting by designation.
[REHEARING]
ORDER
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING OF 504 F.2d 414
Before ELY and WALLACE, Circuit Judges, and THOMPSON, District Judge.
The judges concerned with the subject case (Ely, Wallace, and Thompson) unanimously vote to deny the Petition for Rehearing. Judges Ely and Wallace vote to reject the suggestion for en banc rehearing. Judge Thompson recommends that the suggestion for en banc rehearing be rejected.
The full court has been advised of the suggestion for an en banc, hearing, and ■no judge of the court has requested a vote on the suggestion for rehearing en banc. Fed.R.App.P. 35(b).
The Petition for Rehearing is denied, and the suggestion for a rehearing en banc is rejected.