Bussineau v. Georgetown College

Full title: Doris BUSSINEAU, Appellant, v. PRESIDENT AND DIRECTORS OF GEORGETOWN…

Court: District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Date published: May 4, 1987

525 A.2d 595 (D.C. 1987)

Opinion

No. 84-1318.

May 4, 1987.

Before PRYOR,^_ Chief Judge; NEBEKER, MACK, NEWMAN, FERREN, BELSON,^fn_ TERRY, ROGERS, and STEADMAN,^fn_ Associate Judges.

_ Chief Judge PRYOR and Associate Judges BELSON and STEADMAN have recused from participating in this case.

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.

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, 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.