James Hendry, an Individual Doing Business as Synergy Sales Engineering, Plaintiff/appellee/cross-Appellant v. Exide Electronics Corporation, a North Carolina Corporation, Defendant/appellant/cross-Appellee

Ninth Circuit

James Hendry, an Individual Doing Business as Synergy Sales Engineering, Plaintiff/appellee/cross-Appellant v. Exide Electronics Corporation, a North Carolina Corporation, Defendant/appellant/cross-Appellee

985 F.2d 572, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 8512

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 29, 1993

Docket90-15964

StatusUnpublished

This text of 985 F.2d 572 (James Hendry, an Individual Doing Business as Synergy Sales Engineering, Plaintiff/appellee/cross-Appellant v. Exide Electronics Corporation, a North Carolina Corporation, Defendant/appellant/cross-Appellee) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

James Hendry, an Individual Doing Business as Synergy Sales Engineering, Plaintiff/appellee/cross-Appellant v. Exide Electronics Corporation, a North Carolina Corporation, Defendant/appellant/cross-Appellee, 985 F.2d 572, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 8512 (9th Cir. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

985 F.2d 572

NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
JAMES HENDRY, an individual doing business as SYNERGY SALES
ENGINEERING, Plaintiff/Appellee/Cross-Appellant,
v.
EXIDE ELECTRONICS CORPORATION, a North Carolina corporation,
Defendant/Appellant/Cross-Appellee.

Nos. 90-15964, 90-16148.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Jan. 29, 1993.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Before CHOY, HUG and RYMER, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

The motion of Appellee/Cross-Appellant James Hendry filed herein on January 14, 1993, that this court recall its mandate which was filed herein on December 15, 1992, and clarify or amend the mandate is GRANTED.

The mandate is recalled and the Memorandum Disposition filed herein on September 8, 1992, is amended by causing the last line thereof to read "REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this Memorandum."; and the mandate shall be amended to reflect the same prior to its reissuance.

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