CARRIERS CONTAINER COUNCIL v. MOBILE STEAMSHIP

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

Nos. 89-7279, 89-7451 and 89-7505.

Attorney(S)

Wesley Pipes, Lyons, Pipes Cook, P.C., Mobile, Ala., Peter C. Lambos, Constantine P. Lambos, Conato Caruso, Lambos Giardino, New York City, Carriers Container Council. William B. Harvey, Armbrecht, Jackson, DeMouy, Crowe, Holmes Reeves, Edward A. Dean, Michael A. Figures, Figures, Jackson Harris, Mobile, Ala., for Mobile Steamship Assoc., et al. Paul Myrick, Frank McRight, McRight, Jackson, Myrick Moore, Michael A. Figures, Figures, Jackson Harris, Mobile, Ala., for Mobile Steamship Assn., et al. J. Cecil Gardner, Gardner, Middlebrooks Fleming, P.C., Mobile, Ala., for ILA Local 1985, et al. William B. Harvey, Edward A. Dean, Armbrecht, Jackson, DeMouy, Crowe, Holmes Reeves, Mobile, Ala., for MSSA-ILA Pension Plan, et al. Francis A. Scanlan, Scanlan Scanlan, P.C., Stanley B. Gruber, Freedman Lorry, P.C., Philadelphia, Pa., for Trustees of the PMTA-ILA Pension Fund, et al. Ernest L. Mathews, New York City, for ILA, AFL-CIO amicus curiae.

Judges

Phyllis A. Kravitch
Frank Minis Johnson
Elbert Parr Tuttle

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Please sign up to generate summary.

CARRIERS CONTAINER COUNCIL, INC., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, CROSS APPELLEE, v. MOBILE STEAMSHIP ASSOC. INC.-INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMAN'S ASSOC., AFL-CIO PENSION PLAN AND TRUST AND ITS TRUSTEES F.D. ALSPAUGH, ARTHUR W. STRATTON, HARTWELL LUDLOW, NED MATTINGLY, FELIX CLEVELAND, HENRY L. CLARKE, ALBERT WALTON, JR., SEYMOUR IRBY, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES, CROSS APPELLANTS. CARRIERS CONTAINER COUNCIL, INC., PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,

PER CURIAM:

Upon consideration of the petition for rehearing, that part of the opinion appearing in the published slip opinion on page 2200 [ 896 F.2d at 1340] reading: "This language from the agreement, and the parties' characterizations relied on by the district court,[18] support the conclusion that CCC funds were intended to benefit the local port plans only and should not be returned to the carriers.[19]" is stricken and the following is substituted therefor: "This language from the agreement supports the conclusion that CCC funds were intended to benefit the local port plans only and should not be returned to the carriers.[18]"

Footnote 18 in the slip opinion is stricken.

Other than the above changes, the petition(s) for Rehearing are DENIED and no member of this panel nor other Judge in regular active service on the Court having requested that the Court be polled on rehearing en banc (Rule 35, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure; Eleventh Circuit Rule 35-5), the Suggestion(s) of Rehearing En Banc are DENIED.

Comments