U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, 2014

Warnether Muhammad v. Caterpillar Inc.

Warnether Muhammad v. Caterpillar Inc.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Decided October 16, 2014 · PerCuriam

Warnether Muhammad v. Caterpillar Inc.

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60604 October 16, 2014 Before FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge No. 12‐1723 WARNETHER A. MUHAMMAD, Appeal from the United States District Court Plaintiff‐Appellant, for the Central District of Illinois.

v. No. 09‐cv‐2172 CATERPILLAR, INCORPORATED, Michael P. McCuskey, Judge.

Defendant‐Appellee.

O R D E R On consideration of the Petition For Panel Rehearing filed by Plaintiff‐Appellant on October 7, 2014, all members of the original panel have voted to DENY the Petition For Panel Rehearing.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition For Panel Rehearing is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the opinion issued in the above‐entitled case on September 9, 2014, is hereby amended as follows: On page 5: in the second full paragraph, the last sentence starting “We are not persuaded ...” is deleted; Appeal no. 12‐1723 Page 2 On pages 5‐6: the last paragraph of page 5 (starting “First, Muhammad’s argument ...”) ending on page 6 is deleted.

On page 6: the first sentence of the first full paragraph is modified so that “Second, even if we set that problem aside, another more” is replaced by “A”, so that the sentence reads “A fundamental obstacle ....”

On page 8: the first full paragraph (starting “The first problem is ...”) is deleted, and the first two sentences of the second full paragraph are deleted, such that the second full paragraph begins with “Muhammad has not identified ...”

-2-

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.