Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

623 F.2d 28

Docket Nos. 77-3216, 77-3217.

Davis v. Comed, Inc.

Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided June 24, 1980.

Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1980-06-24

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently April 1999

3 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

2 counsel of record

Relies on Davis v. Comed, Inc.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1980-06-24

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Michael S. Duty, Daniel M. Bennie, Cincinnati, Ohio, for plaintiffs-cross appellants.

¶2F. Bruce Abel, Steer, Strauss, White & Tobias, Cincinnati, Ohio, for defendants-cross appellees.

¶3Before WEICK, LIVELY and KEITH, Circuit Judges.

¶4ORDER

¶5Upon 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.).

¶6No 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.

¶7Upon consideration, it is ORDERED that said petition for rehearing be and it is hereby denied.

/623/f2d/28 · .json · Public domain