shield_lock
JinDaGe
← Back to skills
extension
Category: Development & EngineeringNo API key required

rehearing-en-banc

Drafts a Petition for Rehearing En Banc under FRAP 35 or state equivalents. Guides threshold analysis for precedent conflicts and exceptional importance, enforces formatting/word limits, and includes required certifications. Use when seeking full appellate court reconsideration of a panel decision, raising circuit splits, or challenging panel holdings that conflict with controlling authority.

personAuthor: jakexiaohubgithub
open_in_newRepositorydownloadDownload package

Petition for Rehearing En Banc

Drafts a petition seeking full appellate court reconsideration of a panel decision under FRAP 35 or state equivalents. En banc review is extraordinary — it requires more than panel error.

Quick Start

Gather before drafting:

  1. Panel opinion (including concurrences/dissents)
  2. Prior briefs and relevant record excerpts
  3. Conflicting authority (Supreme Court, circuit, or intra-circuit)
  4. Court-specific local rules (formatting, word limits, certifications)
  5. Filing deadline — 14 days from judgment entry under FRAP 35(c) (non-extendable); state courts vary (14–30 days)

Threshold Analysis

Determine which FRAP 35(a) ground applies before drafting:

| Ground | What to Show | |--------|-------------| | Precedent conflict | Side-by-side incompatible holdings on the same legal question from Supreme Court or circuit authority | | Exceptional importance | Broad impact beyond the parties — affects a class of litigants, statutory scheme, or recurring question |

Even clear panel error does not justify en banc review absent conflict or exceptional importance.

Document Structure

1. Caption

  • Full court name, case number, parties with appellate designations
  • Title: "Petition for Rehearing En Banc"
  • Circuit-specific formatting (margins, font, spacing)

2. Introduction (300–400 words)

  • Open with the specific FRAP 35(a) ground
  • Conflict track: identify conflicting courts, the legal question, quote conflicting language
  • Importance track: identify broader impact — affected litigants, statutory interpretation, constitutional implications
  • Must be self-evident within two paragraphs

3. Statement of the Case (500–800 words)

  • Streamlined procedural history relevant to the petition only
  • Facts framed to show the case cleanly presents the legal question
  • Do not relitigate factual disputes or recount the full trial record

4. Issues Presented (1–3 max)

  • Discrete yes/no questions of law
  • Frame to highlight conflict or exceptional importance
  • Prefer pure legal questions over fact-bound applications

5. Argument

Structure each issue as:

  • A. Threshold — why en banc review is warranted (conflict comparison OR evidence of broad impact)
  • B. Merits — why the panel's reasoning is wrong

Conflict checklist:

  • Precise identification of conflicting decisions
  • Quoted language from panel opinion and conflicting authority
  • Holding-level conflict (not factual differences or dicta)
  • Resulting uncertainty for practitioners/lower courts

Exceptional importance checklist:

  • Categories of affected cases or litigants
  • Impact on statutory/regulatory scheme
  • Case volume or frequency of the question
  • Scholarly commentary or amicus interest if available

Tone: acknowledge the high bar; do not reassert rejected arguments; do not challenge factual findings; address vehicle problems candidly.

6. Conclusion (50–100 words)

  • Request: grant petition, vacate panel decision, decide en banc or remand
  • No new arguments

7. Required Certifications

| Certificate | Contents | |-------------|----------| | Compliance | Word count (excluding caption, TOC, TOA, certificates, signature block); typeface (typically 14-pt proportional); word processing software | | Service | Date, method (CM/ECF for federal), each party/counsel with contact info | | Signature block | Attorney signature, bar number, firm, address, phone, email; verify appellate court bar admission |

Pitfalls and Checks

  • Deadline is jurisdictional — count from judgment entry date (not opinion date); FRAP 35(c) cannot be extended; account for weekends/holidays
  • Word/page limits — FRAP 35(b)(2): 3,900 words or 15 pages; check circuit variations
  • Vehicle assessment — ideal cases present clean legal questions on developed records without procedural complications
  • Self-contained — non-panel judges must understand the petition without prior case familiarity
  • Citation accuracy — verify every cite against original source; pinpoint cites; Bluebook format
  • Court research — en banc grant rates vary by circuit (some < 1%); consider court composition
  • State equivalents — verify applicable state rule, deadline, and procedural differences from FRAP 35