Jones v. Celotex Corp.
Opinion of the Court
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
Following publication of our original opinion in this case, we granted Jones’ motion for leave to secure correction of judgment in the district court. In the district court Jones sought to have the October 30, 1987 judgment corrected on the grounds that it did not mention one of the defendants in the case, William Walker. The district court refused to correct its judgment, finding that Jones had abandoned the claim against William Walker.
The subsequent action by the district court does not render the October 30, 1987 judgment non-final. An order that
We note that the dismissal does not result in inequity to Jones. The facts in the record plainly support the judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Absent the jurisdictional defect, the judgment surely would have been affirmed.
In all other respects, the petition for rehearing is denied and no member of this panel nor judge in regular active service on the court having requested that the court be polled on rehearing en banc, (Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and Local Rule 35) the Suggestion for Rehearing En Banc is DENIED.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Edward G. JONES, and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Intervenor-Appellant v. The CELOTEX CORPORATION, A Wholly Owned SUBSIDIARY OF THE JIM WALTER CORPORATION, and Aetna Casualty and Surety Company
- Cited By
- 13 cases
- Status
- Published