Bussineau v. President of Georgetown College
Doris BUSSINEAU v. PRESIDENT AND DIRECTORS OF GEORGETOWN COLLEGE
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
ORDER PER CURIAM.
On consideration of appellee’s petition for rehearing en banc, the response and the reply thereto; and it appearing that the majority of the judges of this court has voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc, it is
ORDERED that the petition for rehearing en banc is denied.
NEBEKER and TERRY, Associate Judges, would grant rehearing en banc.
Dissent
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Statement of NEBEKER, Associate Judge,
regarding the denial of the petition for rehearing en banc.
I dissented from the division opinion on the ground that I disagreed with its rationale and the authority of the division to depart from binding precedent. Bussineau v. President and Directors of Georgetown College, 518 A.2d 423, 436 (D.C.1986). When the petition for rehearing en banc was filed, it became even more clear that this case is an extremely important one which requires en banc determination. However, response to the en banc petition has precipitated the recusal of three judges of this court. Accordingly, only six judges have voted on the petition, *596 two of whom voted to grant it. Thus, it can be seen that a majority of the active judges of this court has not been able to decide the question presented in the petition for rehearing en banc. It remains an open question.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 3 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.