C & H Nationwide Inc v. McDonald, et al

1District Judge of the Southern District of Texas, sitting by
designation.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-10564
C & H Nationwide, Inc.,
Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellee,
VERSUS
FLOYD R. ADAMS, ET AL.,
Defendants,
FLOYD R. ADAMS; RAYMOND BILLINGTON; NOELINE BILLINGTON; DAVID B.
BOLES; RALPH BOSTON; CHARLOTTE BOSTON; JUANITA BULLOCK; JOHN T.
CLARK; CURLEY HOE TRUCKING, INC.; DAVID DOTTERWEICH; G.R. ELLISTON;
LEON FLOWERS, JR.; J.L. FOWLER; HAROLD GAINES; HOWARD L. GARDNER;
JOHN HECKS; JAMES KILPATRICK; JACKIE KILPATRICK; DELVIN LA DUKE;
VONDA LAMB; ROBERT E. LAND, JR.; VIRGINIA MARTIN; RICHARD G.
MCKENNEY; JOYCE MCLEMORE; BARBARA JEAN MILLER; WILBUR NEWSOME;
CHARLES P. PORTER; RICHARD PUCKETT; LEON S. RABY; ANDREW RACHOY;
ROBERT READ; ADELA READ; DONALD ROTH; LOU J. SMITH; LEE A. TRACY;
SHIRLEY S. TRAVIS; BETTY E. WILLIAMS, Estate of; JAMES E. WINSLOW;
THOMAS YORK; JAMES LAMB; GEORGE MARTIN,
Defendants-Appellants,
JAY MCDONALD; JOHN F. BONANNO; JIMMY BRADDOCK; KARIN BRADDOCK;
RODERICK A. FONTANELLA; WESLEY KENNEMER; WILLIAM R. MULLEN; KEITH
S. MUNDWILLER; ALBERT PEABODY; THOMAS SHROPSHIRE; ROBERT KELVIN
SMITH; FRED W. VOSS,
Defendants-Counter Claimants-Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
(3:90-CV-1510-D)
December 15, 1999
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
Before DeMOSS and PARKER, Circuit Judges and LAKE, District Judge.1

-- 1 of 2 --

PER CURIAM:
Appellants filed a petition for panel rehearing requesting
clarification of the panel opinion entered November 2, 1999.
The previous order of this panel reversing the district
court’s order regarding attorney fees had the effect of vacating
the costs awarded in that order.
The conclusion of the opinion is modified to read: Based on
the foregoing, we reverse the award of attorney fees, affirm the
judgment in all other respects, and remand this case to the
district court for further proceedings consistent with this
opinion.
IT IS ORDERED that the petition for panel rehearing in the
above case is DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --