Protective Committee for Independent Stockholders of TMT Trailer Ferry, Inc. v. Kirkland
In the Matter of TMT TRAILER FERRY, INC., Debtors. PROTECTIVE COMMITTEE FOR INDEPENDENT STOCKHOLDERS OF TMT TRAILER FERRY, INC. v. Thomas J. KIRKLAND, Trustee
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
PER CURIAM:
This case flows out of our prior decision reported at 5 Cir., 434 F.2d 804 , decided October 27, 1970, rehearing denied and rehearing en banc denied December 21, 1970, in connection with appeals Nos. 29089 and 29560, especially the latter. The Trustee petitioned for certiorari to the United States Supreme Court from our decision, which was denied sub nom., Kirkland v. Protective Committee for TMT Trailer Ferry, Inc., 402 U.S. 907 , 91 S.Ct. 1378 , 28 L.Ed.2d 648 (1971). The attorney for the Trustee asserts that the subject matter of this appeal is moot. We agree. However, we vacate the decision below and direct that it be dismissed for mootness, so that it will spawn no legal consequences. See Allen *104 v. Johnson, 5 Cir. 1969 en banc, 413 F. 2d 1218, 1220 . 1
. Had this case not become moot, however, we would have reversed the finding below because of our firm conviction that the evidence showed timely filing of the Notice of Appeal by counsel for the Protective Committee.
On Rehearing
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
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 (Rule 35 Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure; Local Fifth Circuit Rule 12) the Petition for Rehearing En Banc is denied.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 2 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.