Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

M. Lane Powers v. Nassau Development Corp., Houston Natural Gas Corp. And Thermal Resources, Inc.

756 F.2d 1084

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1985-03-26
Topic
international-arbitration

PER CURIAM: In their suggestions for rehearing, the defendants-appellees note, inter alia, that in *1085 Part I of the panel opinion the statement that the anti-competition agreement was illegal “[w]ithout substantial dispute” is subject to the interpretation that the panel held that the agreement was an illegal tying arrangement as a matter of law. We did not intend to so hold. In the context of ruling on the propriety of summary judgment, our intent was to state only that, for purposes of a motion for summary judgment, disputed material issues of material fact (most favorably construed, as required, in favor of the motion’s opponent) without substantial dispute permitted the inference of such illegality. The original panel opinion, 753 F.2d 457, is clarified to this extent. The panel does not find merit in the other contentions advanced in the suggestions for rehearing.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed M. Lane Powers v. Nassau Development Corp., Houston Natural Gas Corp. And Thermal Resources, Inc.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
4 opinions
POWERS v. NASSAU DEVELOPMENT CORP.,756 F.2d 1084(5th Cir. 1985)
M. LANE POWERS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. NASSAU DEVELOPMENT CORP., HOUSTON
NATURAL GAS CORP. AND THERMAL RESOURCES, INC., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.
No. 83-2690.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
March 26, 1985.
Jack D. Nolan, Houston, Tex., Yocel Alonso, Robert J. Vanderlyn, Bellaire, Tex., for plaintiff-appellant.

Jeffrey H. Hubbard, Houston, Tex., for Nassau Development.

Vinson Elkins, Max Hendrick, III, Alison L. Smith, David M. Bond, Houston, Tex., Ann M. Ashton, Washington, D.C., for Houston Natural Gas.

Lionel M. Schooler, Houston, Tex., for Thermal Resources.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
[1] ON SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
[2] (Opinion 2-22-85, 5 Cir., 1985,753 F.2d 457)
Before GARZA, RANDALL, and TATE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
[3] In their suggestions for rehearing, the defendants-appellees note, inter alia, that inPage 1085Part I of the panel opinion the statement that the anti-competition agreement was illegal "[w]ithout substantial dispute" is subject to the interpretation that the panel held that the agreement was an illegal tying arrangement as a matter of law. We did not intend to so hold. In the context of ruling on the propriety of summary judgment, our intent was to state only that,for purposes of a motion for summary judgment,disputed material issues of material fact (most favorably construed, as required, in favor of the motion's opponent) without substantial dispute permitted the inference of such illegality. The original panel opinion,753 F.2d 457, is clarified to this extent. The panel does not find merit in the other contentions advanced in the suggestions for rehearing.

[4] Treating the suggestion for rehearing en banc as a petition for panel rehearing, it is ordered that the petition for panel rehearing is DENIED. No member of the panel nor Judge in regular active service of this Court having requested that the Court be polled on rehearing en banc (Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and Local Rule 35), the suggestion for Rehearing En Banc is DENIED.