Summary
arguing that the "during or following" language in § 113(f) eschews the restrictions in some jurisdictions that tort-feasors may only seek contribution from each other after judgment has been rendered against them and that the "during or following" language embraces the more expansive Restatement view of contribution
Summary of this case from City of Waukesha v. Viacom, Inc.Opinion
No. 00-10197.
December 19, 2001.
Richard Oran Faulk, Gardere Wynne Sewell, Houston, TX, Cynthia J. Bishop, Gardere Wynne Sewell, Dallas, TX, for Aviall Services Inc.
Dale E. Stephenson, Squire, Sanders Dempsey, Cleveland, OH, Elizabeth Ellen Mack, Locke Liddell Sapp, Dallas, TX, for Cooper Industries Inc.
Paul Stanley Weiland, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Antitrust Div., Washington, DC, for United States, Amicus Curiae.
Tracy Don Hester, Timothy A. Wilkins, Bracewell Patterson, Houston, TX, for Amer Petro Inst., American Chemistry Council and Texas Oil Gas Association, Amici Curiae.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas; Sidney A. Fitzwater, Judge.
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND REHEARING EN BANC
(Opinion August 14, 2001, 5 Cir., 2001, 263 F.3d 134)
Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, JONES, SMITH, WIENER, BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, BENAVIDES, STEWART, PARKER, DENNIS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
A member of the Court in active service having requested a poll on the petition for rehearing en banc and a majority of the judges in active service having voted in favor of granting a rehearing en banc,
IT IS ORDERED that this cause shall be reheard by the court en banc with oral argument on a date hereafter to be fixed. The Clerk will specify a briefing schedule for the filing of supplemental briefs.