← All workflows

Rehearing En Banc

Draft En Banc Petitions in Minutes, Not Hours

14 minutes with CaseMark

Fast lane

We have it from here.

Choose the fast one-off run here, or jump into the workspace when you want saved history, revisions, and a fuller matter workflow.

Run this once here

Best for a quick one-off job. Add your email, upload the files, and we'll run the workflow and send the result to your inbox.

1. Add your email so we know where to send the result.

2. Upload the files you want analyzed.

3. Run the workflow and we'll take it from there.

Use in Workspace

Best for ongoing matters

Save and reopen matters, keep documents together, refine the output, rerun with changes, and export or share polished work product when you're done.

Open in Workspace

Need more context?

Scroll for the workflow details below if you want to review what this run handles, what documents help, and what the output looks like.

If this is part of a live matter, the workspace is the better fit: you can keep your documents together, revisit the result, and keep working without starting from scratch.

Jump to detailsOpen in Workspace

Start here

Run this workflow now

Best for a fast one-off run. Add your email, upload the files, and we'll deliver the result without sending you into the full app.

Workflow

Rehearing En Banc

Step 1 · Deliver to

Step 3 · Run this workflow

Workflow

Rehearing En Banc

Overview

CaseMark's Rehearing En Banc skill drafts fully structured petitions for full appellate court reconsideration under FRAP 35 or state equivalents. It performs threshold analysis to identify the strongest grounds for review, maps precedent conflicts with precision, and ensures every section meets strict formatting and word-limit requirements.

Drafting a Petition for Rehearing En Banc is one of the most demanding tasks in appellate practice. Attorneys face non-extendable 14-day deadlines, must perform exacting threshold analysis to justify extraordinary review, and must comply with strict word limits and formatting rules — all while constructing a persuasive argument that a panel decision conflicts with controlling authority or raises issues of exceptional importance.

CaseMark automates the heavy lifting of en banc petition drafting. The AI analyzes your panel opinion and conflicting authority to identify the strongest FRAP 35(a) ground, structures a compliant petition with precise precedent mapping, and generates all required certifications — letting appellate attorneys focus on strategy and refinement rather than formatting and first-draft composition.

How it works

  1. 1. Upload the panel opinion, prior briefs, and conflicting authority

  2. 2. AI performs threshold analysis to identify the strongest FRAP 35(a) ground

  3. 3. Review the fully structured petition with precedent mapping and compliant formatting

  4. 4. Export the final petition in your preferred format (DOCX, PDF)

What you get

  • Threshold Analysis Memorandum

  • Caption and Formatting Block

  • Introduction with FRAP 35(a) Ground Identification

  • Statement of the Case

  • Issues Presented

  • Argument with Precedent Conflict or Exceptional Importance Analysis

  • Required Certifications and Proof of Service

What it handles

  • Threshold analysis identifying FRAP 35(a) grounds for en banc review

  • Side-by-side precedent conflict mapping with quoted holdings

  • Structured petition with compliant caption, statement, and argument sections

  • Automatic word-limit enforcement and formatting compliance

  • Required certifications and proof-of-service generation

  • Discrete issue framing optimized for en banc consideration

Required documents

  • Panel Opinion

    The appellate panel opinion you are seeking to have reheard, including any concurrences or dissents

    .pdf, .docx

  • Prior Appellate Briefs

    Your opening, response, and reply briefs from the panel appeal, along with relevant record excerpts

    .pdf, .docx

  • Conflicting Authority

    Supreme Court, circuit, or intra-circuit decisions that conflict with the panel holding on the same legal question

    .pdf, .docx

Supporting documents

  • Local Court Rules

    Circuit-specific or state court local rules governing en banc petition formatting, word limits, and certification requirements

    .pdf, .docx

  • Amicus or Related Filings

    Any amicus briefs or related case filings that support the argument for en banc review

    .pdf, .docx

Why teams use it

Dramatically reduces the time required to draft a complex en banc petition under tight filing deadlines

Provides rigorous threshold analysis so attorneys can make confident strategic decisions before committing resources

Ensures precise compliance with FRAP 35 word limits, formatting rules, and certification requirements across circuits

Produces structured precedent conflict analysis with side-by-side quoted holdings that strengthen persuasive impact

Questions

Does this tool handle both federal FRAP 35 and state en banc procedures?

Yes. CaseMark drafts petitions under FRAP 35 and adapts to state equivalents. You can provide your court's local rules, and the AI will adjust formatting, word limits, and certification requirements accordingly.

How does CaseMark identify whether my case qualifies for en banc review?

CaseMark performs a structured threshold analysis against both FRAP 35(a) grounds — precedent conflict and exceptional importance. It evaluates your panel opinion against the conflicting authority you provide and flags the strongest basis for review, so you can make an informed strategic decision.

Will the petition comply with word limits and formatting rules?

Absolutely. CaseMark enforces the applicable word limits (typically 3,900 words under FRAP 35) and formats the petition to meet circuit-specific requirements for margins, font, and spacing. You can also input local rule variations for precise compliance.

Can CaseMark generate the required certifications?

Yes. CaseMark automatically generates the required certifications, including the certificate of compliance with word limits and the certificate of service, formatted to your court's specifications.

How does the precedent conflict analysis work?

CaseMark performs a side-by-side comparison of the panel holding against the conflicting authority you upload. It identifies the specific legal question in conflict, extracts and quotes incompatible holdings, and structures the argument to make the conflict self-evident to the full court.

What if I want to argue both precedent conflict and exceptional importance?

CaseMark supports petitions raising one or both FRAP 35(a) grounds. The AI will structure separate argument sections for each ground and advise on the relative strength of each based on the materials you provide.

Related

30b6 Corporate Rep

Master 30(b)(6) Depositions in Minutes, Not Hours

30b6 Deposition

Master 30(b)(6) Depositions in Minutes, Not Hours

Abstract of Judgment

Draft Judgment Abstracts in Minutes, Not Hours