Spiess v. C. Itoh & Co.

Fifth Circuit

Spiess v. C. Itoh & Co.

687 F.2d 129, 29 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1662, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 25098, 30 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 33,167

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedOctober 4, 1982

DocketNo. 79-2382

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 687 F.2d 129 (Spiess v. C. Itoh & Co.) 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

Spiess v. C. Itoh & Co., 687 F.2d 129, 29 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1662, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 25098, 30 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 33,167 (5th Cir. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Before CLARK, Chief Judge, COLEMAN and REAVLEY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

On June 21, 1982, the Supreme Court, - U.S. -, 102 S.Ct. 2951, 73 L.Ed.2d 1344, vacated the judgment of this court rendered April 24, 1981, 643 F.2d 353 (5th Cir. 1981), and remanded this cause to this court for further consideration in light of Sumitomo Shoji America, Inc. v. Avagliano, 457 U.S. -, 102 S.Ct. 2374, 72 L.Ed.2d 765 (1982). The appeal was reopened and the parties were directed to file memoranda stating their positions as to this court’s further action in compliance with the Court’s mandate. The parties urge this court to consider the remaining issues in the case. We decline to do so without first remanding the matter to the district court.

C. Itoh presents several grounds for its motion to dismiss. For example, it argues that it has standing to assert the substantive treaty rights of its parent company. Resolution of these remaining issues may involve several factual determinations that have not yet been made. Therefore, we have determined that no decision should be made by this court at this time. We remand the cause to the district court with directions to conduct further proceedings to finalize the action in light of the mandate of the Supreme Court.

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

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Before CLARK, Chief Judge, COLEMAN and REAVLEY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

On June 21, 1982, the Supreme Court, - U.S. -, 102 S.Ct. 2951, 73 L.Ed.2d 1344, vacated the judgment of this court rendered April 24, 1981, 643 F.2d 353 (5th Cir. 1981), and remanded this cause to this court for further consideration in light of Sumitomo Shoji America, Inc. v. Avagliano, 457 U.S. -, 102 S.Ct. 2374, 72 L.Ed.2d 765 (1982). The appeal was reopened and the parties were directed to file memoranda stating their positions as to this court’s further action in compliance with the Court’s mandate. The parties urge this court to consider the remaining issues in the case. We decline to do so without first remanding the matter to the district court.

C. Itoh presents several grounds for its motion to dismiss. For example, it argues that it has standing to assert the substantive treaty rights of its parent company. Resolution of these remaining issues may involve several factual determinations that have not yet been made. Therefore, we have determined that no decision should be made by this court at this time. We remand the cause to the district court with directions to conduct further proceedings to finalize the action in light of the mandate of the Supreme Court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

687 F.2d 129, 29 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1662, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 25098, 30 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 33,167, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spiess-v-c-itoh-co-ca5-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack