Opinion · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

FALCON v. GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY OF S.W., 647 F.2d 633 (5th Cir. 1981)

MARIANO S. FALCON, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE CROSS-APPELLANT, v. Gen. TELEPHONECOMPANY OF THE Sw., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT CROSS-APPELLEE., 647 F.2d 633 (5th Cir. 1981)

Type
Opinion
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1981-05-29
Topic
general

FALCON v. GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY OF S.W., 647 F.2d 633 (5th Cir. 1981) MARIANO S. FALCON, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE CROSS-APPELLANT, v. GENERAL TELEPHONECOMPANY OF THE SOUTHWEST, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT CROSS-APPELLEE. No. 78-3587.United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed FALCON v. GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY OF S.W., 647 F.2d 633 (5th Cir. 1981). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status
pending
Cited by
1 opinion
FALCON v. GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY OF S.W.,647 F.2d 633(5th Cir. 1981)
MARIANO S. FALCON, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE CROSS-APPELLANT, v. GENERAL TELEPHONE
COMPANY OF THE SOUTHWEST, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT CROSS-APPELLEE.
No. 78-3587.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
May 29, 1981.
Rehearing Denied June 23, 1981.
On Rehearing June 24, 1981.
E. Russell Nunnally, Dallas, Tex., Stephen W. Holt, San Angelo, Tex., for defendant-appellant, cross-appellee.

John E. Collins, Irving, Tex., Frank P. Hernandez, Garland, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee cross-appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas; Sarah Tilghman Hughes, Judge.
On Remand from the Supreme Court of the United States.
Before TUTTLE, RANDALL and TATE, Circuit Judges.
TUTTLE, Circuit Judge:
[1] The judgment of this Court in this case having been vacated by the Supreme Court101 S.Ct. 1752, and remanded for further consideration in light ofTexas Department of Community Affairsv. Burdine,450 U.S. ___,101 S.Ct. 1089, 67 L.Ed.2d ___ (1981), the case is now remanded to the District Court for further proceedings not inconsistent withBurdine.

[2] The Court did not deal with that part of our prior judgment that decided or remanded non-Burdineissues for further consideration of the trial court. We, therefore, reinstate Parts IV and V of our original opinion.

[3] REMANDED.
[4]ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
[5] It appearing that in our Order of May 29, 1981, we did not fully specify our non-Burdineissues, we now amend the last sentence of that Order to read as follows:

[6] We, therefore, reinstate parts I, II, IV, V and VI of our original opinion.Page 151