Corbin v. Blankenburg
This text of 999 F.2d 1043 (Corbin v. Blankenburg) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
999 F.2d 1043
Gary CORBIN, in his capacity as a Trustee and Fiduciary of
the Pattern & Model Makers Association of Warren &
Vicinity Pension Fund, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Karl BLANKENBURG; John Cruz; Charles Furlotte; Robert
Kuschel; Joseph Laughhunn; Robert Joe Ledbetter; David
Margolis; David McEachin; Robert Stephens; Jerome Wilson;
Robert Udell; Mid-Continental Claim Service and
Administrators, Inc.; Gary Novara; Laurence Breskin,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 92-1540.
United States Court of Appeals,
Sixth Circuit.
Oct. 4, 1993.
Before: MERRITT, Chief Judge; KEITH, KENNEDY, BOYCE F. MARTIN, NATHANIEL R. JONES, MILBURN, RALPH B. GUY, DAVID A. NELSON, RYAN, BOGGS, ALAN E. NORRIS, SUHRHEINRICH, SILER, and BATCHELDER, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
A majority of the Judges of this Court in regular active service have voted for rehearing of this case en banc. Sixth Circuit Rule 14 provides as follows:
The effect of the granting of a hearing en banc shall be to vacate the previous opinion and judgment of this court, to stay the mandate and to restore the case on the docket sheet as a pending appeal.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the previous decision and judgment of this court is vacated, the mandate is stayed and this case is restored to the docket as a pending appeal.
The Clerk will direct the parties to file supplemental briefs and will schedule this case for oral argument as soon as possible.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
999 F.2d 1043, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 25528, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/corbin-v-blankenburg-ca6-1993.