Volker Keith Meinhold v. United States Department of Defense United States Department of the Navy
Volker Keith MEINHOLD, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; United States Department of the Navy, Defendant-Appellant
Opinion of the Court
ORDER
The opinion in the above-entitled case is amended as follows:
At slip opinion page 10792 [123 F.3d at 1280], first line of the citation after Philips v. Perry, there shall be added:
We do note that there is a great deal of dicta in both parts of the district court’s opinion, dicta which were not relevant to the question before it as to whether Mein-hold was entitled to attorney fees because of the Navy’s interpretation of its regulation. Our opinion should not be read as expressing approval of these dicta. We note only that on the sole question before it the district court held that the Navy was not substantially justified in its interpretation of its phase of the case, Meinhold raised the argument that the Navy has taken a position from this early stage up to the decision of this court in Meinhold II that is contrary to the decision of the circuit court in Meinhold II that this interpretation of the regulation cannot be sustained.
Dissent
KOZINSKI, Circuit Judge,
Amended Dissent:
The dissent is amended at Slip Op. page 10794 [123 F.3d at 1281], paragraph 2, line 2, after “district court.”, by inserting the following footnote (renumbering subsequent footnotes. accordingly):
Paradoxically, the majority also repudiates the district court’s reasoning. Maj. op. at 10792 [123 F.3d at 1280]. How one can defer to and, at the same time, reject the district court’s reasoning is a lesson I missed in judges school.
Combined text as published — syllabus, headnotes and all opinions in one document
131 F.3d 842 97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 15 ,217
Volker Keith MEINHOLD, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; United States Department of the Navy, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 96-56094.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Dec. 18, 1997.
ORDER 1
Prior report: 123 F.3d 1275 .
2
The opinion in the above-entitled case is amended as follows:
3
At slip opinion page 10792 [123 F.3d at 1280], first line of the citation after Philips v. Perry, there shall be added:
4
We do note that there is a great deal of dicta in both parts of the district court's opinion, dicta which were not relevant to the question before it as to whether Meinhold was entitled to attorney fees because of the Navy's interpretation of its regulation. Our opinion should not be read as expressing approval of these dicta. We note only that on the sole question before it the district court held that the Navy was not substantially justified in its interpretation of its phase of the case, Meinhold raised the argument that the Navy has taken a position from this early stage up to the decision of this court in Meinhold II that is contrary to the decision of the circuit court in Meinhold II that this interpretation of the regulation cannot be sustained.
KOZINSKI, Circuit Judge, Amended Dissent:
5
The dissent is amended at Slip Op. page 10794 [123 F.3d at 1281], paragraph 2, line 2, after "district court.", by inserting the following footnote (renumbering subsequent footnotes accordingly):
6
Paradoxically, the majority also repudiates the district court's reasoning. Maj. op. at 10792 [123 F.3d at 1280]. How one can defer to and, at the same time, reject the district court's reasoning is a lesson I missed in judges school.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 9 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.