TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Edwards Company, Inc. v. Monogram Industries, Inc., Monotronics, Inc. And Entronic Company

EDWARDS COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MONOGRAM INDUSTRIES, INC., Monotronics, Inc. and Entronic Company, Defendants-Appellees

Edwards Co. v. Monogram Indus., 715 F.2d 157 (5th Cir. 1983)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
September 2, 1983
Docket
No. 82-2019
Judges
Clark, Brown, Gee, Rubin, Reayley, Politz, Randall, Tate, Johnson, Williams, Garwood, Jolly, Higginbotham
Citations
715 F.2d 1571983 U.S. App. LEXIS 24282
Summary
ON SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion

BY THE COURT:

A member of the Court in active service having requested a poll on the application for rehearing en banc and a majority of the judges in active service having voted in favor of granting a rehearing en banc, IT IS ORDERED that the cause shall be reheard by the Court en banc with oral argument on a date hereafter to be fixed. The Clerk will specify a briefing schedule for the filing of supplemental briefs.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1983: 11984: 11985: 119832026peak 1983 · 1

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list