Ross v. Bank South, N.A.

Related Cases

Ross v. Bank South, N.A.
Shores v. Sklar
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 94,064 James L. Shores, Jr., of the Estate of Clarence E. Bishop, Jr., on Behalf of Himself and All Other Persons Who Purchased First Mortgage 8% Revenue Bonds Issued by the Industrial Board of the Town of Frisco City, Alabama v. Jerald H. Sklar
Ernest Ross, Individually and as Representative of a Bondholder Class v. Bank South, N.A., Alston & Bird, George Miller, Individually, and as a Representative of a Class of Bondholders Described in the Complaint v. Arthur M. Rice, Jr., William v. Weldon, Ernest Ross, Individually and as Representative of a Bondholder Class v. Bank South, N.A., George Miller, Individually, and as a Representative of a Class of Bondholders Described in the Complaint v. Arthur M. Rice, Jr., Ernest Ross, Individually and as Representative of a Bondholder Class v. Bank South, N.A., George Miller, Individually and as Representative of a Bondholder Class v. Arthur M. Rice, Jr.
Greg Solomon, Patricia Beckwith, Raleigh Brinson, and Earl Jennings, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. Liberty County, Florida, Gene Free, Chairman, Commissioner, Joe Burke, Commissioner, James E. Johnson, Commissioner, J.L. Johnson, Commissioner, John T. Sanders, Commissioner, Their Successors and Agents, All in Their Official Capacities, Gregory Solomon, Patricia Beckwith, Raleigh Brinson and Earl Jennings, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. Liberty County School Board, Florida, Ras Hill, Chairman, Joseph Combs, Tommy Duggar, W.L. Potter, Herbert Whittaker, Members of the Liberty County School Board, Their Successors and Agents, All in Their Official Capacities

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING IN BANC

(Opinion February 17, 1988, 11th Cir., 1988, 837 F.2d 980)

Before RONEY, Chief Judge, TJOFLAT, HILL, FAY, VANCE, *1133KRAVITCH, JOHNSON, HATCHETT, CLARK and COX, Circuit Judges*. BY THE COURT:

A member of this court,in active service having requested a poll on the application for rehearing in banc and a majority of the judges in this court in active service having voted in favor of granting a rehearing in banc,

IT IS ORDERED that the above causes shall be reheard by this court in banc with oral argument during the week of October 17, 1988, on a date hereafter to be fixed. The clerk will specify a briefing schedule for the filing of in banc briefs. The previous panel’s opinion is hereby VACATED.