Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Saldana-Sanchez v. Lopez-Gerena, 00-1703 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Number: 00-1703 Visitors: 27
Filed: Jul. 23, 2001
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: NILDA M. SALDANA-SANCHEZ; ZULMA RIVERA-ORTIZ;there has been no suggestion that the dismissal affects our, ability to rely on the district court's written opinion issued in connection with the second appeal as setting out, the court's reasons for granting the protective order in the, first instance.
United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 00-1703 NILDA M. SALDANA-SANCHEZ; RAFAEL DELGADO-MESTRE; JUAN NIEVES- SANTIAGO; MIGUEL RAMOS-CRUZ; SINFORIANO CASTILLO-GARCIA; JULIO C. MOJICA-UBILES; MIGUEL A. OCASIO-SANTOS; MARGARITA POUPART- FONTANEZ; HILDA TORRES-PENA; MINERVA PACHOT-RIVERA; JOSE L. ORTIZ-ORTIZ; ZULMA RIVERA-ORTIZ; ANGEL L. RODRIGUEZ-LAZU; LUZ R. DIAZ-MORALES; JOSE L. BAEZ-RODRIGUEZ; JOSE IVAN CASTILLO-ORTIZ, Plaintiffs-Appellants, LUZ M. ORTIZ-QUINTANA, Plaintiff, v. JULIO CESAR LOPEZ-GERENA, Mayor of the Municipality of Humacao; RAMON VEGA-SOSA, Defendants-Appellees, MARGARITA GONZALEZ-VAZQUEZ; RAUL FERRER Defendants. ERRATA SHEET The opinion of this Court issued on July 12, 2001, is amended as follows: On page 9, after the word “dismissed” at the end of the page, add a new footnote 10, reading: Dismissal was sought by the plaintiffs on the ground that the issues presented in the second appeal duplicated those in the first, and was granted, without prejudice, pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 42(b). Although the dismissal of the second appeal precludes our direct review of the denial of reconsideration, there has been no suggestion that the dismissal affects our ability to rely on the district court's written opinion -- issued in connection with the second appeal -- as setting out the court's reasons for granting the protective order in the first instance. On page 12, line 19, strike the phrase “and later denial of reconsideration.” On page 12, line 21, replace “these orders” with “this order” in both instances, and replace “were” with “was.” On page 12, line 21, replace “'final decisions'” with “a 'final decision.'”
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer