From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sunbelt Savings v. Montross

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
May 15, 1991
932 F.2d 363 (5th Cir. 1991)

Opinion

No. 90-1510.

May 15, 1991.

Marc S. Culp, Sheehan, Young Culp, P.C., Dallas, Tex., for defendant-appellant.

Robert D. Daniel, Hirsch Westheimer, Houston, Tex., for amicus NCNB Texas Nat. Bank.

Richard J. Osterman, Jr., F.D.I.C., Washington, D.C., for amicus F.D.I.C.

William S. Montgomery, Houston, Tex., for amicus Montgomery Montgomery.

John Edwards, Thomas E. Kurth, Jeffrey S. Rosenblum, Haynes Booth, Dallas, Tex., for Sunbelt Sav., FSB.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas; Robert B. Maloney, Judge.

Before CLARK, Chief Judge, POLITZ, KING, JOLLY, DAVIS, SMITH, DUHE, WIENER and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

Judge Thomas Gibbs Gee was a member of the panel that decided this case but resigned from the Court on February 1, 1991 and, therefore, he did not participate in this decision.
Judges Garwood, Higginbotham and Jones are recused, and therefore, did not participate in this decision.


ON SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC [2] (Opinion January 28, 1991, 5 Cir., 1991, 923 F.2d 353)


A member of the Court in active service having requested a poll on the suggestion 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 this 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.


Summaries of

Sunbelt Savings v. Montross

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
May 15, 1991
932 F.2d 363 (5th Cir. 1991)
Case details for

Sunbelt Savings v. Montross

Case Details

Full title:SUNBELT SAVINGS, FSB DALLAS, TEXAS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. GEORGE MICHAEL…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Date published: May 15, 1991

Citations

932 F.2d 363 (5th Cir. 1991)

Citing Cases

Federal Deposit Insurance v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

Because we find no need to extend this doctrine, we will not adopt the FDIC's position on this point. We find…

Rhode Island Dep. Economic Protect. v. Ryan

Negotiable instruments are defined in G.L. 1956 § 6A-3-104. The defendant has not argued on appeal that the…