Dorothy R. Cannon v. The Kroger Co.

Fourth Circuit

Dorothy R. Cannon v. The Kroger Co.

837 F.2d 660, 133 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2233, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 9189, 1988 WL 6195

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 29, 1988

Docket86-1720

StatusPublished

Cited by24 cases

This text of 837 F.2d 660 (Dorothy R. Cannon v. The Kroger Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dorothy R. Cannon v. The Kroger Co., 837 F.2d 660, 133 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2233, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 9189, 1988 WL 6195 (4th Cir. 1988).

Pincite

Opinions

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING IN BANC.

The appellant’s petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing in banc were submitted to this Court. [Prior report: 832 F.2d 303]

On the question of rehearing before the panel, Judge Smalkin, United States District Judge sitting by designation, voted to rehear the case. Judges Hall and Wilkinson voted to deny.

In a requested poll of the Court on the suggestion for rehearing in banc, Judges Widener, Phillips, and Murnaghan voted to rehear the case in banc; and Judges Winter, Russell, Hall, Sprouse, Ervin, Chapman, Wilkinson, and Wilkins voted against in banc rehearing.

As the panel considered the petition for rehearing and is of the opinion that it should be denied, and as a majority of the active circuit judges voted to deny rehearing in banc,

IT IS ORDERED that the petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing in banc are denied.

Entered at the direction of Judge Hall.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING IN BANC.

The appellant’s petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing in banc were submitted to this Court. [Prior report: 832 F.2d 303]

On the question of rehearing before the panel, Judge Smalkin, United States District Judge sitting by designation, voted to rehear the case. Judges Hall and Wilkinson voted to deny.

In a requested poll of the Court on the suggestion for rehearing in banc, Judges Widener, Phillips, and Murnaghan voted to rehear the case in banc; and Judges Winter, Russell, Hall, Sprouse, Ervin, Chapman, Wilkinson, and Wilkins voted against in banc rehearing.

As the panel considered the petition for rehearing and is of the opinion that it should be denied, and as a majority of the active circuit judges voted to deny rehearing in banc,

IT IS ORDERED that the petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing in banc are denied.

Entered at the direction of Judge Hall.

Peter T. Winkels v. George A. Hormel & Company, a Delaware Corporation, United Food & Commercial Workers, International Union, Afl-Cio, Joseph Hanson, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Regional Director, United Food & Commercial Workers, International Union, Region No. 13 and Trustee of P-9 Afl-Cio, Local 9, United Food & Commercial Workers, Afl-Cio, George A. Hormel & Co. v. United Food & Commercial Workers, International Union, Afl-Cio, Joseph Hanson, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Regional Director, United Food & Commercial Workers, International Union, Regional No. 13 and Trustee of P-9 Afl-Cio, Local 9, United Food & Commercial Workers, Afl-Cio

874 F.2d 567 (Eighth Circuit, 1989)

Mitchell v. Joseph's Supermarkets, Inc.

712 F. Supp. 59 (W.D. Pennsylvania, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

837 F.2d 660, 133 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2233, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 9189, 1988 WL 6195, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dorothy-r-cannon-v-the-kroger-co-ca4-1988.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack