Judges: Per Curiam
Filed: Aug. 18, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 August 18, 2003 Before Hon. RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circuit Judge Hon. DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge Hon. ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY ) Appeal from the United States Plaintiff-Appellee, ) District Court for the Northern ) District of Illinois, No. 02-2957 v. ) Eastern Division. ) SOUTH-TEC DEVELOPMENT WAREHOUSE, ) No. 97 C 5720 INCORPORATED, ) Defendant-Third Party ) Hon. George
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 August 18, 2003 Before Hon. RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circuit Judge Hon. DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge Hon. ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY ) Appeal from the United States Plaintiff-Appellee, ) District Court for the Northern ) District of Illinois, No. 02-2957 v. ) Eastern Division. ) SOUTH-TEC DEVELOPMENT WAREHOUSE, ) No. 97 C 5720 INCORPORATED, ) Defendant-Third Party ) Hon. George M..
More
United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 August 18, 2003 Before Hon. RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circuit Judge Hon. DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge Hon. ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY ) Appeal from the United States Plaintiff-Appellee, ) District Court for the Northern ) District of Illinois, No. 02-2957 v. ) Eastern Division. ) SOUTH-TEC DEVELOPMENT WAREHOUSE, ) No. 97 C 5720 INCORPORATED, ) Defendant-Third Party ) Hon. George M. Marovich, Judge. Plaintiff-Appellant ) ) v. ) ) R. R. DONNELLEY & SONS COMPANY, ) Third Party ) Defendant-Appellee. ) ORDER On August 6, 2003, the Plaintiff-Appellee filed a Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc, and the Third Party Defendant-Appellee filed a Petition for Rehearing or in the Alternative for Clarification in the above-captioned case. All the judges on the original panel have voted to deny rehearing, and none of the judges in active service have requested a vote on the petition for rehearing en banc. Therefore, both petitions are DENIED. The July 23, 2003, opinion is amended in two respects. On page 6, the phrase beginning “defeating the third party complaint . . .” is amended to read “defeating the third party complaint in a ruling not effectively appealed and therefore affirmed. . . .” On page 17, the final sentence of the opinion is amended to read, “Therefore, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED IN PART and REVERSED IN PART and REMANDED for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.”