Drafting a Petition for Rehearing En Banc requires extensive legal research across circuits, careful analysis of precedent conflicts, and meticulous compliance with strict procedural rules and word limits. Attorneys typically spend 6-8 hours researching circuit splits, crafting persuasive arguments for exceptional review, and ensuring technical compliance with Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Petitions for rehearing en banc demand extraordinary precision—identifying precedent conflicts, demonstrating exceptional importance, and meeting strict 14-day deadlines while adhering to complex formatting rules. With grant rates below 1% in most circuits, attorneys spend 15-20 hours crafting these high-stakes documents, often under intense time pressure after an adverse panel decision.
CaseMark analyzes your panel opinion and case materials to identify the strongest grounds for en banc review, whether precedent conflicts or exceptional importance. Our AI drafts a comprehensive, court-ready petition that meets Rule 35 standards, includes precise legal citations, and complies with your circuit's specific formatting requirements—all in minutes instead of days.
This workflow is applicable across multiple practice areas and use cases
Patent, trademark, and copyright appeals to the Federal Circuit and regional circuits often require en banc petitions to resolve conflicts in claim construction standards, obviousness analysis, or fair use doctrine.
IP litigation heavily relies on federal appellate precedent with frequent circuit splits on key doctrines, and en banc review is critical for establishing industry-wide standards in technology and creative industries.
Criminal appeals involving constitutional rights, sentencing guidelines, or evidentiary standards often require en banc petitions to resolve circuit splits on Fourth Amendment issues, Miranda rights, or federal sentencing law.
Criminal defense generates substantial federal appellate litigation with frequent constitutional questions and circuit conflicts, where en banc review can establish critical precedents affecting defendants' rights nationwide.
Employment discrimination and wrongful termination cases often reach federal circuit courts, requiring en banc petitions when panel decisions conflict with EEOC guidance or other circuits' interpretations of Title VII, ADA, or FLSA.
Employment law frequently involves circuit splits on statutory interpretation and precedent-setting decisions that affect entire industries, making en banc review particularly valuable for establishing uniform standards.
Securities fraud and regulatory enforcement appeals often involve circuit splits on materiality standards, scienter requirements, and SEC rule interpretations that warrant en banc review for market-wide clarity.
Securities litigation frequently reaches federal appellate courts with significant precedential impact on capital markets, and uniform circuit precedent is essential for regulatory compliance across the financial industry.
Environmental regulatory challenges and Clean Air Act/Clean Water Act litigation often reach circuit courts with conflicting interpretations of EPA authority and regulatory standards requiring en banc resolution.
Environmental law involves complex federal regulatory appeals with significant industry-wide implications, where circuit splits on agency deference and statutory interpretation frequently warrant en banc review.
Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 35, en banc review is warranted when a proceeding involves a question of exceptional importance or when the panel decision conflicts with Supreme Court or circuit precedent. Exceptional importance typically means the decision affects a significant class of litigants, resolves important statutory interpretation questions, or addresses recurring legal issues. Mere panel error, even if clear, does not justify en banc review without meeting these threshold standards.
CaseMark produces a comprehensive, court-ready petition for rehearing en banc in approximately 25 minutes after you upload your panel opinion and case materials. This includes analyzing precedent conflicts, identifying exceptional importance arguments, drafting all required sections with proper citations, and formatting according to your circuit's local rules. The traditional manual process typically requires 15-20 hours of attorney time.
Yes, CaseMark generates petitions that comply with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 35 and circuit-specific local rules, including word/page limits (typically 15 pages or 3,900 words), typeface requirements, margin specifications, and required certificates. The system formats captions, headings, and citations according to your jurisdiction's standards and includes accurate certificates of compliance and service.
En banc petitions face extremely high bars, with most federal circuits granting rehearing in less than 1% of cases. Success requires demonstrating clear precedent conflicts or truly exceptional importance that transcends individual case outcomes. CaseMark helps maximize your chances by identifying the strongest possible grounds, framing issues to highlight circuit splits or broad significance, and ensuring your petition meets all threshold requirements that judges consider when voting on whether to grant rehearing.
Yes, while CaseMark is optimized for federal circuit practice under FRAP 35, it can generate petitions for state appellate courts with similar en banc or rehearing procedures. State courts may have different deadlines (ranging from 14-30 days), varying standards for granting rehearing, and distinct formatting requirements. You can customize the output to match your state's specific rules and procedural standards.