Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

863 F.2d 8

Docket No. 87-2206.

Boureslan v. Aramco

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided Dec. 23, 1988.

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1988-12-23

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently March 2006

1 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

6 counsel of record

Relies on Boureslan v. Aramco

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1988-12-23

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1James Field Tyson, Neal H. Paster, Perry Archer, Houston, Tex., for Boureslan.

¶2Charles A. Shanor, Vincent J. Black-wood, Karen MacRae, Attys., EEOC, Washington, D.C., for intervenor EEOC.

¶3Edward E. Potter, McGuiness & Williams, Washington, D.C., for amicus EEAC.

¶4John D. Roady, Linda Ottinger Headley, Hutcheson & Grundy, Houston, Tex., for Aramco.

¶5Lawrence Z. Lorber, John E. Parauda, Breed, Abbott & Morgan, Washington, D.C., for amicus ASPA.

¶6Cecil J. Olmstead, Steptoe & Johnson, Washington, D.C., for amicus Rule of Law Committee.

¶7ON SUGGESTIONS FOR REHEARING EN BANC

¶8Before CLARK, Chief Judge, GEE, RUBIN, REAVLEY, POLITZ, KING, JOHNSON, WILLIAMS, GARWOOD, JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, JONES, SMITH and DUHE, Circuit Judges.

¶9BY THE COURT:

¶10A member of the Court in active service having requested a poll on the suggestions for rehearing en banc and a majority of the judges in active service having voted in favor of granting a rehearing en banc,

¶11IT IS ORDERED that this cause shall be reheard by the Court en banc with oral argument on a date hereafter to be fixed. The Clerk will specify a briefing schedule for the filing of supplemental briefs.

/863/f2d/8 · .json · Public domain