Hall Approved Free Access to American Case Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 1996

Kraft, Inc. v. The United States/cross-Appellant

Kraft, Inc. v. The United States/cross-Appellant
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · Decided September 27, 1996 · Plager, Cowen, Nies, Schall
96 F.3d 1428; 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 26102; 1996 WL 551455 (Federal Reporter, Third Series)

Counsel

James L. Malone III, McDermott, Will & Emery, Chicago, Illinois, submitted a petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing en banc for plaintiff-appellant. With him on the petition were William L. Goldman and J. Gary McDavid, Washington, D.C., Kenneth L. Greene, Attorney, Tax Division, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., submitted a petition for rehearing for defendant/cross-appellant and also a response to plaintiff-appellant’s petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing en banc. With him on the petition and on the response were Loretta C. Argrett, Assistant Attorney General, Gary R. Allen, Chief, Appellate Section, and David Gustafson, Attorney.

Kraft, Inc. v. The United States/cross-Appellant

Cases that cite this one

19 later published cases cite this decision.

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

ORDER

The parties’ petitions for rehearing by the panel on the grounds that the court failed to consider certain factors are denied as lacking merit. However, the opinion, issued June 5, 1996, does not specifically state that a separate judgment had been entered on the unap-pealed claims, one point raised in the petitions. For clarification, note 1 on page 2 of the slip opinion [85 F.3d at 603, note 1] is amplified to read:

1 Kraft had also made claims to certain investment tax credits on television films. A separate judgment was entered denying these claims on January 31, 1994. That judgment was vacated and reentered as part of the March judgment sought to be appealed. Kraft has not pursued these claims, and we need not refer to them further herein as the part of the March judgment dealing with these claims is not challenged.

So ORDERED.

ORDER

A suggestion for rehearing in banc having been filed by the APPELLANT, and a response thereto having been invited by the court and filed by the CROSS-APPELLANT,

UPON CONSIDERATION THEREOF, it is

ORDERED that the suggestion for rehearing in banc be, and the same hereby is, DECLINED.

The mandate of the court will issue on October 4,1996.

SCHALL, Circuit Judge, did not participate in the vote.

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