Dibidale of Louisiana, Inc. v. American Bank & Trust Co., New Orleans
Opinion
941 F.2d 308
DIBIDALE OF LOUISIANA, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AMERICAN BANK & TRUST CO., NEW ORLEANS, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Nos. 89-3601, 90-3400.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Aug. 26, 1991.
James F. Willeford, Gordon P. Serou, Jr., John H. Ryan, Ryan & Willeford, New Orleans, La., for plaintiff-appellant.
C. Berwick Duval, Jr., Sidney C. Sundbery, Duval, Funderburk, Sundbery & Lovell, Houma, La., for First National Bank of Houma.
Donna D. Fraiche, Sandra A. Vujnovich, Fred J. Cassibry, Brook, Morial, Cassibry, Fraiche & Pizza, New Orleans, La., for Whitmore & Caillouet.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana; Robert F. Collins, District Judge.
PETITION FOR REHEARING AND SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
(Opinion November 6, 1990, 5th Cir.1990, 916 F.2d 300 )
Before POLITZ, JOLLY, and JONES, Circuit Judges. *
PER CURIAM:
1
The paragraph of the original opinion found at 916 F.2d 300 , 306-07 immediately after the citation to 116 Cong.Rec. 32124, 32125, and carrying headnote 7 identification, is deleted; the following is substituted therefor:
2
From the foregoing we conclude that in order to defend against an adverse summary judgment on its claim under 12 U.S.C. § 1972 (1)(D), Dibidale need only allege and offer adequate summary judgment proof upon which the trier-of-fact could find that the hiring of Theriot was in fact a condition or requirement of its securing the desired loan from American Bank.
3
In all other respects the opinion is REINSTATED.
4
No judge in regular active service on the court having requested that the court be polled relative to rehearing en banc, the Suggestions for Rehearing En Banc are DENIED.
* JONES, Circuit Judge, dissents as per her dissent to the original opinion
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 1 case
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
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.