48 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 38,508, 3 indiv.empl.rts.cas. 1706 Roy Penny v. Thomas Kennedy, Comm'r of Fire & Police of the City of Chattanooga, Tennessee, 862 F.2d 567 (6th Cir. 1988). · Go Syfert
Search
48 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 38,508, 3 indiv.empl.rts.cas. 1706 Roy Penny v. Thomas Kennedy, Comm'r of Fire & Police of the City of Chattanooga, Tennessee, 862 F.2d 567 (6th Cir. 1988). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
7 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 6 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Inez Aiken, of the Estate of L.D. Aiken (ca6, 1989-02-16)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Inez Aiken, of the Estate of L.D. Aiken
6th Cir. · 1989 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Peery, 862 F.2d 567 (6th Cir.1988) (corporate president subject to suit under Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act as agent of the corporation.) Mrs. Aiken argues that Dix Fork is distinguishable because both the mining company and the supposed agent were sued there, while only Mr. Aiken was sued here.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Kipperman v. Berg (In re Berg)
Bankr. S.D. Cal. · 2015 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See also United States v. Peery, 862 F.2d 567, 568 (6th Cir.1988) (affirming district court’s judgment after district court held motion for summary judgment in abeyance, conducted an evi-dentiary hearing, and then granted summary judgment).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
48 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 38,508, 3 indiv.empl.rts.cas. 1706 Roy Penny
v.
Thomas Kennedy, Commissioner of Fire and Police of the City of Chattanooga, Tennessee
86-6280.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Aug 3, 1988.
862 F.2d 567
Published

862 F.2d 567

48 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 38,508,
3 Indiv.Empl.Rts.Cas. 1706
Roy PENNY, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
Thomas KENNEDY, Commissioner of Fire and Police of the City
of Chattanooga, Tennessee, et al., Defendants-Appellants.

No. 86-6280.

United States Court of Appeals,
Sixth Circuit.

Aug. 3, 1988.

Prior report: 6th Cir., 846 F.2d 1563.

ORDER

Before ENGEL, Chief Judge, LIVELY, KEITH, MERRITT, KENNEDY, MARTIN, JONES, KRUPANSKY, WELLFORD, MILBURN, GUY, NELSON, RYAN, BOGGS and NORRIS, Circuit Judges.

[*~567]1

A majority of the Judges of this Court in regular active service have voted for rehearing of this case en banc. Sixth Circuit Rule 14 provides as follows:

2

The effect of the granting of a hearing en banc shall be to vacate the previous opinion and judgment of this Court, to stay the mandate and to restore the case on the docket as a pending appeal.

[*~568]3

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the previous decision and judgment of this Court is vacated, the mandate is stayed and this case is restored to the docket as a pending appeal.

[*~569]4

The Clerk will direct the parties to file supplemental briefs and will schedule this case for oral argument as soon as practicable.