Fed. Carr. Cas. P 83,826 Advance United Expressways, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 990 F.2d 184 (5th Cir. 1993). · Go Syfert
Search
Fed. Carr. Cas. P 83,826 Advance United Expressways, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 990 F.2d 184 (5th Cir. 1993). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
3 citation events across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Jennings v. Tamaqua Cable Products Corp. (In Re Roberts Carrier Corp.) (tnmb, 1993-08-13)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" Jennings v. Tamaqua Cable Products Corp. (In Re Roberts Carrier Corp.)
Bankr. M.D. Tenn. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See Advance United Expressways, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 965 F.2d 1347 (5th Cir.1992), modified, 990 F.2d 184 (5th Cir.1993); Clements v. SRB Tech Transp.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
ADVANCE UNITED EXPRESSWAYS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant
91-1320.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Apr 22, 1993.
990 F.2d 184
Byron D. Olsen, Felhaber, Larson, Fen-Ion & Vogt, Barbara R. Kueppers, Minneapolis, MN, for Eastman Kodak., Nicholas J. DiMichael, Richard D. Fortin, Donelan, Cleary, Wood & Maser, Washington, DC, for amicus curiae — Nat. Indus. Transp. League., Judith A. Albert, Atty., I.C.C., Washington, DC, for amicus curiae I.C.C., Daniel J. Sweeney, McCarthy, Sweeney & Harkaway, Washington, DC, Paul 0. Taylor, Minneapolis, MN, David G. Sperry, Independence, MO, for amicus curiae— Health & Personal Care Dist. Conference, et al.
, Goldberg, Jolly, Wiener.
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING & SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC

(Opinion June 26, 5th Cir., 1992 965 F.2d 1347)

Before GOLDBERG, JOLLY, and WIENER, Circuit Judges. BY THE COURT:

To the extent that our opinion of June 26, 1992, 965 F.2d 1347, is in conflict with Reiter v. Cooper, — U.S.-, 113 S.Ct. 1213, 122 L.Ed.2d 604 (1993), it has been overruled. In all other respects, the petition for rehearing is DENIED. The case is thus REMANDED to the district court for further consideration in the light of Reiter and of our opinion.

Finally, no active judge having requested that the court be polled, the petition for rehearing en banc is DENIED.