Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
25 Fair Empl.prac.cas. 1735,26 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 32,062mariano S. Falcon, Plaintiff-appellee Cross-appellant, v. General Telephone Company of the Southwest,defendant-appellant Cross-appellee
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. - 647 F.2d 633
May 29, 1981.On Rehearing June 24, 1981.Rehearing Denied June 23, 1981
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas; Sarah Tilghman Hughes, Judge.
E. Russell Nunnally, Dallas, Tex., Stephen W. Holt, San Angelo, Tex., for defendant-appellant, cross-appellee.
John E. Collins, Irving, Tex., Frank P. Hernandez, Garland, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee cross-appellant.
Before TUTTLE, RANDALL and TATE, Circuit Judges.
TUTTLE, Circuit Judge:
The judgment of this Court in this case having been vacated by the Supreme Court 101 S.Ct. 1752, and remanded for further consideration in light of Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. --, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 67 L.Ed.2d -- (1981), the case is now remanded to the District Court for further proceedings not inconsistent with Burdine.
The Court did not deal with that part of our prior judgment that decided or remanded non-Burdine issues for further consideration of the trial court. We, therefore, reinstate Parts IV and V of our original opinion.
REMANDED.
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
It appearing that in our Order of May 29, 1981, we did not fully specify our non-Burdine issues, we now amend the last sentence of that Order to read as follows: We therefore, reinstate parts I, II, IV, V and VI of our original opinion.