Question about Fed. Court of Appeals procedures

[Paladin]

IIRC, a 3-judge panel decision on an issue is controlling on subsequent 3-judge panels on that issue in that Circuit. Only an en banc panel (or SCOTUS) can overrule.

But what if the initial 3-judge panel was split, let's say 2 to 1 for that issue, but a subsequent 3-judge panel wants to go 3 to 0 against that issue? Or does the subsequent panel not even get to that point because they have to follow the initial panel from the start?

Next related issue: what if the initial split panel (2:1) made their decision based on a Preliminary Injunction and did not decide the case per se? Does a subsequent 3-judge panel have to follow the initial one's rationale and decision? Does that initial panel's PI decision control even if the subsequent panel is not dealing with a PI on the issue?

[TruOil]

IIRC, a 3-judge panel decision on an issue is controlling on subsequent 3-judge panels on that issue in that Circuit. Only an en banc panel (or SCOTUS) can overrule.

But what if the initial 3-judge panel was split, let's say 2 to 1 for that issue, but a subsequent 3-judge panel wants to go 3 to 0 against that issue? Or does the subsequent panel not even get to that point because they have to follow the initial panel from the start?

Next related issue: what if the initial split panel (2:1) made their decision based on a Preliminary Injunction and did not decide the case per se? Does a subsequent 3-judge panel have to follow the initial one's rationale and decision? Does that initial panel's PI decision control even if the subsequent panel is not dealing with a PI on the issue?

1. It doesn't matter if it is 3-0 or 2-1, it is binding on all courts in that circuit unless overturned.
2. The ruling on review of a preliminary injuction SHOULD be (and usually is) whether the trial court "abused its discretion" in issuing the order. The appellate decision is NOT on the merits any more than the preliminary injunction itself, and is therefore not binding on a subsequent appeal from a final judgment.

[pythonfan]

If the judgement is pro 2A it is by default "abuse of discretion".

[TruOil]

If the judgement is pro 2A it is by default "abuse of discretion".

A decision wrong on the law is always an abuse of discretion. Otherwise, the pertinent question is whether the court's action is consistent with the substantive law, and whether the application of the law to the facts is within the range of discretion conferred upon trial courts, read in light of the purposes and policies of the statutes applied. the amount of discretion with which a court is vested varies depending on the law in question and the facts of the case.This said, it is the exclusive province of the trial court to weigh conflicting evidence, the only exception being those cases in which the evidence is undisputed and does not rely on the testimony and credibility of witnesses.