العربية
中国
Français
Deutsch
Ελληνική
हिन्दी
Italiano
日本語
Português
Русский
EspañolEN BANC
'''En banc''', '''in banc''', '''in banco''' or 'in bank' is a French term used to refer to the hearing of a case by all the judges of a court. Appellate courts in the United States sometimes grant rehearing ''en banc'' to reconsider a decision of a panel of the court (a panel generally consisting of only three judges), where the case concerns a matter of exceptional public importance or the panel's decision appears to conflict with a prior decision of the court. In rarer instances, an appellate court will order hearing ''en banc'' as an initial matter, instead of the panel hearing it first.
Some appellate courts, such as the Supreme Court of the United States and the highest courts of most U.S. states, do not sit in panels, but hear substantially all of their cases ''en banc''.
Cases in United States Courts of Appeals are heard by a three-judge panel. A majority of the active circuit judges may decide to hear or rehear a case ''en banc''. Parties may suggest ''en banc'' hearings to the judges, but they have no right to them. Federal law states ''en banc'' proceedings are disfavored but may be ordered in order to maintain uniformity of decisions within the Circuit or if the issue is exceptionally important. Each Court of Appeal also has particular rules regarding ''en banc'' proceedings. For example, the First Circuit will not hear a case ''en banc'' if the three-judge panel was unanimous. In several Circuits, only an ''en banc'' court or a Supreme court decision can overrule a prior decision in that Circuit. Pub L. No. 95-486 states that for Courts with more than 15 judges, an ''en banc'' hearing may consist of "such number of members of its en banc courts as may be prescribed by rule of the court of appeals." So far, only the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, with 28 judges utilizes that procedure, and its "en banc" court consists of 15 judges. (Theoretically, the Ninth Circuit can hear the case with all judges participating. In practice, however, such a hearing has only been asked for thrice and denied each time. See Compassion in Dying v. Washington, 85 F.3d 1440 (9th Cir. 1996); United States v. Penn, 647 F.2d 876, 889-91 (9th Cir. 1980); Campbell v. Wood, 20 F.3d 1050, 1051, 1053 (9th Cir. 1994)),
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit with 17 judges is eligible to adopt a similar procedure, but has not done so.
California prefers to use English versions of legal terms whenever possible. Thus, one occasionally sees the inscription "in bank" on California Supreme Court opinions published before the court began routinely sitting ''en banc'' on all cases (prior to 1960, most cases were disposed of by three-justice panels). In French, ''en banc'' means "in bench" or "on bench", which seems a more appropriate translation than "in bank" given that judges sit, as a group, on the "bench".
9th Circuit press release regarding increasing en banc to 15 judges
Some appellate courts, such as the Supreme Court of the United States and the highest courts of most U.S. states, do not sit in panels, but hear substantially all of their cases ''en banc''.
| Contents |
| United States Courts of Appeals |
| California linguistic hesitations |
| References |
United States Courts of Appeals
Cases in United States Courts of Appeals are heard by a three-judge panel. A majority of the active circuit judges may decide to hear or rehear a case ''en banc''. Parties may suggest ''en banc'' hearings to the judges, but they have no right to them. Federal law states ''en banc'' proceedings are disfavored but may be ordered in order to maintain uniformity of decisions within the Circuit or if the issue is exceptionally important. Each Court of Appeal also has particular rules regarding ''en banc'' proceedings. For example, the First Circuit will not hear a case ''en banc'' if the three-judge panel was unanimous. In several Circuits, only an ''en banc'' court or a Supreme court decision can overrule a prior decision in that Circuit. Pub L. No. 95-486 states that for Courts with more than 15 judges, an ''en banc'' hearing may consist of "such number of members of its en banc courts as may be prescribed by rule of the court of appeals." So far, only the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, with 28 judges utilizes that procedure, and its "en banc" court consists of 15 judges. (Theoretically, the Ninth Circuit can hear the case with all judges participating. In practice, however, such a hearing has only been asked for thrice and denied each time. See Compassion in Dying v. Washington, 85 F.3d 1440 (9th Cir. 1996); United States v. Penn, 647 F.2d 876, 889-91 (9th Cir. 1980); Campbell v. Wood, 20 F.3d 1050, 1051, 1053 (9th Cir. 1994)),
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit with 17 judges is eligible to adopt a similar procedure, but has not done so.
California linguistic hesitations
California prefers to use English versions of legal terms whenever possible. Thus, one occasionally sees the inscription "in bank" on California Supreme Court opinions published before the court began routinely sitting ''en banc'' on all cases (prior to 1960, most cases were disposed of by three-justice panels). In French, ''en banc'' means "in bench" or "on bench", which seems a more appropriate translation than "in bank" given that judges sit, as a group, on the "bench".
References
9th Circuit press release regarding increasing en banc to 15 judges
This article provided by Wikipedia. To edit the contents of this article, click here for original source.
psst.. try this: add to faves
