Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Davis v. Comed, Inc.

Davis v. Comed, Inc., 623 F.2d 28 (6th Cir. 1980)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1980-06-24
Topic
general

ORDER Upon consideration, it is ordered that the Motion for Clarification of Opinion or in the Alternative, Petition for Rehearing by Defendant-Cross-Appellees Comed, Inc., Medi-world, Inc. and Community Medical Systems Corporation, be and it is hereby denied, 619 F.2d 588 (6th Cir.). No active judge having requested that a vote be taken on the suggestion of the Plaintiffs-Cross-Appellants, Norman H. Davis, et al., that its petition for rehearing be heard en banc, said petition was referred to the panel for determination by the Chief Judge. Upon consideration, it is ORDERED that said petition for rehearing be and it is hereby denied.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Davis v. Comed, Inc.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
2 opinions
DAVIS v. COMED, INC.,623 F.2d 28(6th Cir. 1980)
NORMAN H. DAVIS ET AL., FOR THEMSELVES AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER
SHAREHOLDERS OF COMMUNITY MEDICAL SYSTEMS CORPORATION AND ON BEHALF OF ALL
OTHER SHAREHOLDERS OF COMED, INC., PLAINTIFFS-CROSS APPELLANTS, v. COMED,
INC., ET AL., DEFENDANTS-CROSS APPELLEES.
Nos. 77-3216, 77-3217.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
June 24, 1980.
Michael S. Duty, Daniel M. Bennie, Cincinnati, Ohio, for plaintiffs-cross appellants.

F. Bruce Abel, Steer, Strauss, White Tobias, Cincinnati, Ohio, for defendants-cross appellees.
Before WEICK, LIVELY and KEITH, Circuit Judges.
[1] ORDER
[2] Upon consideration, it is ordered that the Motion for Clarification of Opinion or in the Alternative, Petition for Rehearing by Defendant-Cross-Appellees Comed, Inc., Mediworld, Inc. and Community Medical Systems Corporation, be and it is hereby denied,619 F.2d 588(6th Cir.).

[3] No active judge having requested that a vote be taken on the suggestion of the Plaintiffs-Cross-Appellants, Norman H. Davis, et al., that its petition for rehearing be heard en banc, said petition was referred to the panel for determination by the Chief Judge.

[4] Upon consideration, it is ORDERED that said petition for rehearing be and it is hereby denied.Page 422