Section 8

Citation: Section 8
Parent Document: Theodore Hayes v. Philip Harvey, 874 F.3d 98 (2017)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 2017-10-18
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4435296/theodore-hayes-v-philip-harvey/ ↗

Other Sections in This Document (260)

Theodore Hayes v. Philip Harvey, 874 F.3d 98 (2017)
Theodore Hayes v. Philip Harvey, 874 F.3d 98 (2017)
Theodore Hayes v. Philip Harvey, 874 F.3d 98 (2017)
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
§ 1437f
§ 1437f
§ 1437f
§ 1437f
§ 1437f
§ 1487f
§ 1487f
§ 1487f
§ 1487f
§ 1487f
§ 1487f
§ 1487f
§ 1487f
§ 1437f
§ 1437f
§ 1437f
§ 1437f
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8

Full Text

611 chars

Whát does the majority make of this complete consensus? I know not. While these cases do not bind us, we must be “mindful of our obligation to avoid circuit conflict,” PNC Bank Del. v. F/V Miss. Laura, 381 F.3d 183, 186 (3d Cir. 2004), and “widely held views impel us to consider whether the reasoning applied by our colleagues elsewhere is persuasive.” In re Grossman’s Inc., 607 F.3d 114, 121 (3d Cir. 2010). That enhanced voucher holders have a right to remain is not just a “widely held” view, it is a uniformly held view. The majority’s failure to reckon with the judicial consensus is curious but telling.