casemark/rehearing-en-banc
skills/legal/rehearing-en-banc/SKILL.md
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.
$ install --global
skillsauthnpx skillsauth add casemark/skills rehearing-en-bancInstall this skill globally with one command. Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and Windsurf.
Security Scan Results
3 of 9 scanners reported clean
Some scanners were skipped, did not run, or reported a non-clean status. Review each row below.
3
Scanners Passed
9
Scanners in report
Clean
TrivyContainer and dependency vulnerability scanner
95%
Clean
SemgrepStatic code analysis for vulnerabilities
95%
Clean
mcp-scan (Snyk)Model Context Protocol security validation
95%
Skipped
Snyk (dep)Open source security scanning
50%
Skipped
Socket.devSupply chain security analysis
50%
Skipped
VirusTotalMulti-engine malware detection
50%
Skipped
CrowdStrikeAdvanced threat intelligence
50%
Skipped
OSV-ScannerOpen Source Vulnerability database check
50%
Skipped
OWASP Dep-Check
50%
Last scanned: Apr 17, 2026, 2:17 PM25.6s1 file scanned
SKILL.md
- name:
- rehearing-en-banc
- description:
- 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.
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:
- Panel opinion (including concurrences/dissents)
- Prior briefs and relevant record excerpts
- Conflicting authority (Supreme Court, circuit, or intra-circuit)
- Court-specific local rules (formatting, word limits, certifications)
- 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
casemark/skills/legal/automated-contract-summary
development
VerifiedTrustedCommunity
name: automated-contract-summary language: en description: Generates structured executive summaries of contracts using ML — captures key terms, party obligations, risk allocations, and compliance requirements in a standardized format. Optimized for high-volume review where speed and consistency matter. tags: - summarization - agreement - corporate --- # Automated Contract Summarization Produces standardized executive summaries of contracts using machine learning, capturing essential term
21SKILL.mdUpdated May 26, 2026
casemark/obligation-mapping
tools
VerifiedTrustedCommunity
Extracts regulatory obligations from dense regulations across jurisdictions. Breaks down multi-level regulations into clear article-level obligations, classifies applicability to a business, and prioritizes by risk level. Use when translating regulations into actionable compliance requirements.
21SKILL.mdUpdated May 25, 2026
casemark/horizon-scanning
development
VerifiedTrustedCommunity
Continuously monitors regulatory landscapes for changes relevant to a specific business. Ingests global regulatory updates, filters by relevance, summarizes impact, and produces an actionable change advisory. Use when tracking regulatory developments affecting a particular product or market.
21SKILL.mdUpdated May 25, 2026
casemark/gap-analysis
testing
VerifiedTrustedCommunity
Compares an organization's existing compliance controls, policies, and procedures against extracted regulatory obligations to identify coverage gaps. Produces a remediation plan with prioritized actions. Use when assessing compliance maturity or preparing for regulatory audits.
21SKILL.mdUpdated May 25, 2026