Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Galella v. Onassis

November 13, 1973

RONALD E. GALELLA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
JACQUELINE ONASSIS, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE, JOHN WALSH, JAMES KALAFATIS AND JOHN CONNELLY, DEFENDANTS, AND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INTERVENOR-APPELLEE



487 F.2d 986.

Timbers, Circuit Judge, with whom Oakes, Circuit Judge, concurs (dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc).

A petition for a rehearing having been filed herein by counsel for the appellee, Jacqueline Onassis,

Upon consideration thereof, it is

Ordered that said petition be and it hereby is denied.

/s/ A. DANIEL FUSARO, Clerk

(HON. WILLIAM H. TIMBERS, C.J. votes to grant the petition for rehearing) Petition for Rehearing En Banc.

A petition for a rehearing containing a suggestion that the action be reheard en banc having been filed herein by counsel for the appellee, Jacqueline Onassis, and a poll of the judges in regular active service having been taken on the request of such a judge, and Chief Judge Kaufman, Circuit Judges Friendly, Hays, Feinberg, Mansfield and Mulligan having voted to deny the petition, and Circuit Judges Oakes and Timbers having voted to grant the petition, and a per curiam opinion and an opinion by Circuit Judge Timbers having been filed,

Upon consideration thereof, it is

Ordered that said petition be and it hereby is denied.

/s/ IRVING R. KAUFMAN Chief Judge

Per Curiam:

Our brothers Oakes and Timbers have, as they characterize it, dissented "once again"*fn1 from this Court's denial of en banc reconsideration of a panel decision. In their dissenting opinion, they have recognized that en banc review is not appropriate simply to resolve a mere disagreement with the outcome reached by a panel of this Court. Our dissenting brothers note, however, that they find in this case not merely an erroneous decision but a substantial question of unusual importance. Wholly aside from our view whether it was proper for the panel to modify the district court's decree, we cannot agree with their assessment of the importance of the question before us.

Although we sympathize with the plight of Mrs. Onassis, it hardly need be stated that the importance of a decision does not turn on whether the litigants stand in the limelight of public recognition or in the shadows of anonymity. Rather, significance rests on the precedential impact that a determination of this Court is likely to have on the future course of the law and hence on the lives of countless others.

When examined from this perspective, it is quite clear that the panel's decision does not rise to the threshold of importance requisite to en banc reconsideration. To be sure the issue of what constitutes the appropriate standard for appellate review of the terms of an injunctive decree is indeed important. And, if the panel had recast the traditional yardstick into a test other than abuse of the wide discretion accorded the district court in formulating its decree, International Salt Co. v. United States, 332 U.S. 392, 400-401, 92 L. Ed. 20, 68 S. Ct. 12 (1947); United States v. National Lead Co., 332 U.S. 319, 335, 67 S. Ct. 1634, 91 L. Ed. 2077 (1947), then we too would have responded affirmatively to a request for en banc review. But it did not do this. Although several members of the Court may dislike the result, the principle embodied in the majority's opinion is not a departure from the established rule. Since we foresee minimal precedential impact for this decision, and ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.