4 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. (Trial Section) 2000).
As explained in Charlton:
When there is review at final hearing by a 3-judge
panel of an interlocutory order entered by a 3-judge panel
(which will almost always be the same three judges), the
case takes on a different posture. All three judges
previously considered the record and cast their votes. Any
review at final hearing will be on the same record and new
arguments are not authorized. It should be apparent that
when a 3-judge panel reviews its previous decision, the 3-
judge panel, in effect, is reconsidering its earlier
decision. There is no de novo consideration. Hence, it will
be necessary for a party asking for review to establish that
the 3-judge panel overlooked or misapprehended something in
entering the order sought to be reviewed. 2000 Pat. App.
Lexis 4.
A three judge panel decision establishes the law of the
case. A party need not seek review of a decision made by a three
judge panel to preserve a party’s right to seek judicial review.
The decision on preliminary motions is herein made final for
purposes of judicial review.
In essence, Bouzida seeks final review of our decision to
deny its preliminary motion 1. As stated above, however, such a
request for “review” is treated as a request for reconsideration.
A party seeking “review”, e.g. reconsideration of the decision on
preliminary motions, is not permitted to make new arguments, or
file new evidence in support of the request.
Accordingly, Bouzida’s request for a testimony period to be
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007