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, V. MOBILE STEAMSHIP ASSOCIATION, 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, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS; MOBILE STEAMSHIP ASSOCIATION, MSSA-ILA PENSION PLAN & WELFARE PLANS, MSSA-ILA LOCAL 1985 MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEES' PENSION PLAN, PMTA-ILA PENSION FUND, PMTA-ILA WELFARE FUND, PMTA-ILA SUPPLEMENTAL UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BENEFIT PLAN, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES, V. CARRIER'S CONTAINER COUNCIL, INC., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT, INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMAN'S ASSOCIATION, AFL-CIO, INTERVENOR-DEFENDANT

11th Cir. | 1990-06-22
Nos. 89-7279, 89-7451 and 89-7505
Before KRAVITCH and JOHNSON, Circuit Judges, and TUTTLE, Senior Circuit Judge:
904 F.2d 28 Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (1990) Positive Treatment
Cited by 10 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM:

(Opinion March 22, 1990, 11th Cir., 1990, 896 F. 2d 1330)

Before KRAVITCH and JOHNSON, Circuit Judges, and TUTTLE, Senior Circuit Judge:

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^) 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.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Vernon v. Resolution Tr. Corp. for Freedom Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 907 F.2d 1101 (11th Cir. 1990)
    …edom on February 6, 1989, from which judgment appellants appeal. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW A grant of summary judgment is subject to de novo review by this court. Carriers Container Council, Inc. v. Mobile S.S. Assoc., 896 F. 2d 1330, 1337, modified, 904 F. 2d 28 (11th Cir.1990). The parties have simplified this task for us in that neither side disputes the facts recited by the other, and none of the facts conflict. We need only address whether New Freedom is entitled as a matter of law to the summary judgme…
  • Twin Constr., Inc. v. Boca Raton, 925 F.2d 378 (11th Cir. 1991)
    …. 2548, 2552, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). All the evidence and factual inferences therefrom are reviewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Carriers Container Council, Inc. v. Mobile S.S. Assoc., 896 F. 2d 1330, 1337, modified, 904 F. 2d 28 (11th Cir.1990). III. DISCUSSION A. The development of the D’Oench doctrine and its codification demonstrate that appellant’s first three contentions must fail To analyze Twin’s claims regarding the D’Oench doctrine requires an understanding of t…
  • Vernon v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 981 F.2d 1230 (11th Cir. 1993)
    …granting summary judgment for the FDIC, from which appellants now appeal. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW A grant of summary judgment is subject to de novo review on appeal. Carriers Container Council v. Mobile S.S. Assoc., 896 F. 2d 1330, 1337, modified, 904 F. 2d 28 (11th Cir.1990). The facts as developed in the district court do not conflict. The only issue is whether the D’Oench doctrine bars the appellants’ claims against the FDIC as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U…

Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw