Secretary Labor v. Comm Trust Co

Opinion

Opinions of the United

2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

3-7-2007

Secretary Labor v. Comm Trust Co Precedential or Non-Precedential: Precedential

Docket No. 05-2785

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007

Recommended Citation "Secretary Labor v. Comm Trust Co" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 1394. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/1394

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2007 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

Nos. 05-2785/4828

ELAINE L. CHAO, SECRETARY OF LABOR, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

v.

COMMUNITY TRUST COMPANY,

Appellant.

___________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania District Court No. 05-mc-00018 District Judge: Hon. Mary A. McLaughlin

____________________

Argued on March 9, 2006

Before: ALDISERT, and ROTH*, Circuit Judges RODRIGUEZ**, District Judge

(Opinion filed January 19, 2007)

ORDER AMENDING OPINION

_________________

*Judge Roth assumed senior status on May 31, 2006.

**The Honorable Joseph H. Rodriguez, Senior United States District Judge for the District of New Jersey, sitting by designation.

ROTH, Circuit Judge:

IT IS ORDERED that the published Opinion in the above case filed January 19, 2007, be amended as follows:

On page 22, L.19, delete the following: “Koresko, however, did not consider Shaw vis-à-vis the GLBA because the subjects of the subpoena in that case were not financial institutions. For that reason, Koresko and Penn-Mott were not able to invoke the GLBA as a defense. Therefore, Koresko is distinguishable on this point.” and replace with the following: “ Koresko, however, did not consider Shaw vis-à-vis the GLBA. Therefore, Koresko is distinguishable.

By the Court,

/s/ Jane R. Roth

Circuit Judge

Dated: March 7, 2007

lwc/cc: Lowell R. Gates, Esq.

Albert N. Peterlin, Esq.

Ellen L. Beard, Esq.

Robyn Swanson, Esq.