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.
Best use case
rehearing-en-banc is best used when you need a repeatable AI agent workflow instead of a one-off prompt.
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.
Teams using rehearing-en-banc should expect a more consistent output, faster repeated execution, less prompt rewriting.
When to use this skill
- You want a reusable workflow that can be run more than once with consistent structure.
When not to use this skill
- You only need a quick one-off answer and do not need a reusable workflow.
- You cannot install or maintain the underlying files, dependencies, or repository context.
Installation
Claude Code / Cursor / Codex
Manual Installation
- Download SKILL.md from GitHub
- Place it in
.claude/skills/rehearing-en-banc/SKILL.mdinside your project - Restart your AI agent — it will auto-discover the skill
How rehearing-en-banc Compares
| Feature / Agent | rehearing-en-banc | Standard Approach |
|---|---|---|
| Platform Support | Not specified | Limited / Varies |
| Context Awareness | High | Baseline |
| Installation Complexity | Unknown | N/A |
Frequently Asked Questions
What does this skill do?
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.
Where can I find the source code?
You can find the source code on GitHub using the link provided at the top of the page.
SKILL.md Source
# 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
Related Skills
skill-name
Replace with a specific description of what this skill does and when to use it. Include keywords that help agents identify relevant tasks.
writing-surgical-consultation-notes
Creates structured surgical consultation responses with assessment and surgical candidacy determination. Use when responding to surgical consults, evaluating surgical candidates, or documenting surgical recommendations.
writing-operative-reports
Creates structured operative notes with findings, technique, specimens, and estimated blood loss. Use when dictating operative reports, documenting surgical procedures, or recording intraoperative findings.
writing-irb-submissions
Creates IRB submission packages with protocol summaries, consent forms, and risk-benefit analysis. Use when submitting to IRB, preparing ethics applications, or writing consent documents.
writing-grant-applications-research
Structures NIH/foundation grant applications with specific aims, significance, and innovation sections. Use when writing research grants, preparing NIH applications, or structuring grant proposals.
writing-admission-orders
Generates structured admission order sets with diagnosis-specific protocols and safety checks. Use when admitting patients, creating admission orders, or setting up inpatient care plans.
validating-new-laboratory-tests
Structures test validation with precision, accuracy, linearity, and reference range establishment. Use when validating new assays, documenting method comparisons, or establishing reference ranges.
validating-clinical-data-quality
Structures data quality assessment with completeness, accuracy, and consistency validation. Use when auditing clinical data, assessing data quality, or validating data integrity.
triaging-emergency-presentations
Applies ESI triage methodology to assign acuity levels based on presenting complaints, vital signs, and resource needs. Use when triaging ED patients, assigning acuity scores, or prioritizing emergency cases.
tracking-treatment-response
Monitors treatment response using imaging criteria, biomarkers, and clinical assessment with documentation. Use when assessing treatment response, documenting disease status, or tracking progression.
tracking-incidental-findings
Manages incidental finding follow-up using ACR White Paper recommendations. Use when tracking incidentalomas, scheduling follow-up imaging, or managing unexpected findings.
tracking-hospital-acquired-conditions
Monitors and documents hospital-acquired infections, pressure injuries, and other preventable conditions. Use when tracking HACs, documenting nosocomial events, or reporting patient safety indicators.