Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Harrison v. Nissan Motor Corp, 95-1300 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Number: 95-1300 Visitors: 5
Filed: Oct. 09, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Opinions of the United 1996 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 10-9-1996 Harrison v. Nissan Motor Corp Precedential or Non-Precedential: Docket 95-1300 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1996 Recommended Citation "Harrison v. Nissan Motor Corp" (1996). 1996 Decisions. Paper 43. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1996/43 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the Unit
More
Opinions of the United 1996 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 10-9-1996 Harrison v. Nissan Motor Corp Precedential or Non-Precedential: Docket 95-1300 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1996 Recommended Citation "Harrison v. Nissan Motor Corp" (1996). 1996 Decisions. Paper 43. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1996/43 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 1996 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ________________________ NO. 95-1300 ________________________ FANNIE HARRISON, Appellee v. NISSAN MOTOR CORPORATION IN U.S.A., Appellant (D.C. Civ. No. 94-cv-06791) _________________________ BEFORE: BECKER, ROTH, AND McKEE, Circuit Judges _______________ ORDER ________________ The Petition for Panel Rehearing is granted, and the opinion of the panel filed October 9, 1996 is vacated. The Clerk shall relist the matter before the panel at the convenience of the Court. The Petition has been granted because, upon investigation after the Petition for Panel Rehearing was received, it appeared that neither the papers filed by Nissan pursuant to the remand for supplementation of the record, nor the certification of the district court supplementing the record were ever received by the panel. It appears that, although they were docketed in the district court, they were never transmitted to the Clerk of this Court. The only supplementation that the panel saw was that submitted by the plaintiff, which apparently had been filed directly by the plaintiff in this Court, and the Court filed its opinion based on a one-sided supplementation. BY THE COURT: /s/ Edward R. Becker Circuit Judge DATED: November 4, 1996
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer