Mark McManaway v. KBR, Incorporated

554 F. App'x 347
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedApril 30, 2014
Docket12-20763
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 554 F. App'x 347 (Mark McManaway v. KBR, Incorporated) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Mark McManaway v. KBR, Incorporated, 554 F. App'x 347 (5th Cir. 2014).

Opinions

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC

ORDER:

Treating the petition for rehearing en banc as a petition for panel rehearing, the petition for panel rehearing is DENIED. The court having been polled at the request of one of its members, and a majority of the judges who are in regular active service and not disqualified not having voted in favor (Fed R.App. P. and 5th Cir. R. 35), the petition for rehearing en banc is DENIED.

In the en banc poll, five judges voted in favor of rehearing (Judges Jolly, Jones, Smith, Clement, and Owen), and nine judges voted against rehearing (Chief Judge Stewart and Judges Davis, Dennis, Prado, Elrod, Southwick, Haynes, Graves, and Higginson).

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
554 F. App'x 347, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mark-mcmanaway-v-kbr-incorporated-ca5-2014.