Ross v. Bank South, N.A.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit June 10, 1988

Ross v. Bank South, N.A., 848 F.2d 1132 (11th Cir. 1988)

1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 9693

Clark, Cox, Fay, Hatchett, Hill, Johnson, Kravitch, Roney, Tjoflat, Vance

Opinion of the Court

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING IN BANC

(Opinion February 17, 1988, 11th Cir., 1988, 837 F.2d 980)

Before RONEY, Chief Judge, TJOFLAT, HILL, FAY, VANCE, *1133KRAVITCH, JOHNSON, HATCHETT, CLARK and COX, Circuit Judges*. BY THE COURT:

A member of this court,in active service having requested a poll on the application for rehearing in banc and a majority of the judges in this court in active service having voted in favor of granting a rehearing in banc,

IT IS ORDERED that the above causes shall be reheard by this court in banc with oral argument during the week of October 17, 1988, on a date hereafter to be fixed. The clerk will specify a briefing schedule for the filing of in banc briefs. The previous panel’s opinion is hereby VACATED.

Reference

Full Case Name: Ernest ROSS, individually and as representative of a bondholder class v. BANK SOUTH, N.A., Alston & Bird, Defendants-Appellants George MILLER, individually, and as a representative of a class of bondholders described in the complaint v. Arthur M. RICE, Jr., William V. Weldon, Defendants-Appellants Ernest ROSS, individually and as representative of a bondholder class v. BANK SOUTH, N.A., Defendants-Appellees George MILLER, individually, and as a representative of a class of bondholders described in the complaint v. Arthur M. RICE, Jr., Defendants-Appellees Ernest ROSS, individually and as representative of a bondholder class v. BANK SOUTH, N.A., Defendants-Appellees George MILLER, individually and as representative of a bondholder class v. Arthur M. RICE, Jr.
Cited By: 5 cases
Status: Published