United States v. Robert Craig & Peter v. Pappas, United States of Am. v. Frank P. North, Jr., & Est. of Jack E. Walker, 919 F.2d 57 (7th Cir. 1990). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Robert Craig & Peter v. Pappas, United States of Am. v. Frank P. North, Jr., & Est. of Jack E. Walker, 919 F.2d 57 (7th Cir. 1990). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
8 citation events (4 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" John A. Betts v. United States
7th Cir. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Craig, 907 F.2d 653, 656 (7th Cir.), amended on other grounds, 919 F.2d 57 (7th Cir.1990), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 2013 , 114 L.Ed.2d 100 (1991).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Robert CRAIG and Peter v. Pappas, Defendants-Appellants; UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Frank P. NORTH, Jr., and Estate of Jack E. Walker, Defendants-Appellees
89-1744, 89-1466.
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Nov 13, 1990.
919 F.2d 57
Wood, Posner, Crabb.
Cited by 8 opinions  |  Published

ORDER

The slip opinion issued in the above-entitled case on July 16, 1990, 907 F.2d 653, (7th Cir.1990) is hereby amended.

Page 14, 907 F.2d page 660, first complete paragraph, the last sentence starting with the word “Accordingly” should read as follows:

Accordingly, the Walker estate’s petition should be dismissed for want of subject-matter jurisdiction and the case is remanded to the district court with instructions to vacate its previous orders relating to the estate and dismiss the estate’s petition; the judgment of the district court denying a writ of error coram nobis to Robert Craig and Peter V. Pappas is affirmed; and the judgment of the district court granting a writ of error coram nobis to Frank P. North, Jr., is reversed.

Page 14, 907 F.2d page 660 last paragraph, should read as follows: “AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.”

On consideration of the petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing in banc filed in the above-entitled cause by defendants-appellants and defendants-ap-pellees on July 30, 1990, no judge in active service has requested a vote thereon, and all of the judges on the original panel have voted to deny a rehearing. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the aforesaid petition for rehearing with suggestion for rehearing in banc be, and the same is hereby, DENIED.