Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

hearing
hearing

Related Cases

People v. Ledesma, 43 Cal.3d 171, 729 P.2d 839, 233 Cal.Rptr. 404
View Case »
Langlois v. Deja Vu, Inc., 984 F.Supp. 1327
View Case »
McKenzie Const., Inc. v. Maynard, 758 F.2d 97
View Case »
Johnson v. Superior Court, 143 Cal.App.4th 297, 49 Cal.Rptr.3d 52, 06 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9098, 2006 Daily Journal D.A.R. 13,014
View Case »
Himmelfarb v. U.S., 175 F.2d 924, 49-1 USTC P 9313, 38 A.F.T.R. 145
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Konigsberg v. State Bar of California, 368 U.S. 869, 82 S.Ct. 21, 7 L.Ed.2d 69

Facts

The case stems from a series of legal decisions that have been made in the past, culminating in the current petition for rehearing. The details of the original case and the subsequent opinions are critical to understanding the context of the current legal dispute.

The case stems from a series of legal decisions that have been made in the past, culminating in the current petition for rehearing.

Issue

The main legal issue revolves around whether the court should grant a rehearing on the previously decided matters.

The main legal issue revolves around whether the court should grant a rehearing on the previously decided matters.

Rule

The court applies the principles governing petitions for rehearing, which typically require a showing of new evidence or a significant error in the prior rulings.

The court applies the principles governing petitions for rehearing, which typically require a showing of new evidence or a significant error in the prior rulings.

Analysis

In considering the petition for rehearing, the court evaluated the arguments presented and determined that there was insufficient basis to revisit the earlier decisions. The court found that the previous rulings were sound and did not warrant further examination.

In considering the petition for rehearing, the court evaluated the arguments presented and determined that there was insufficient basis to revisit the earlier decisions.

Conclusion

The court denied the petition for rehearing, thereby affirming the earlier decisions.

The court denied the petition for rehearing, thereby affirming the earlier decisions.

Who won?

The prevailing party is the side that opposed the rehearing, as the court's denial of the petition means that the previous rulings remain in effect.

The prevailing party is the side that opposed the rehearing, as the court's denial of the petition means that the previous rulings remain in effect.

You must be