Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Arnold v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Decided July 8, 1983No. Nos. 80-1245 to 80-1247 and 80-1334Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partWidener, Circuit Judge
I
At the outset I should say that I am able to concur in the result of this case only because it was heard in two separate and distinct parts, and amounts to two cases heard by en banc courts of different composition. The procedural aspect of the case with respect to en banc determination was heard by the judges not disqualified in reg*908ular active service, while the case on the merits of the appeal was heard by them and, in addition, Judge Bryan, a Senior Judge. Had that part of the case with respect to en banc determination been determined the way I think it should have been, then we would not…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Zahn v. International Paper Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Textile Mills Securities Corp. v. CommissionerSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Western Pacific Railroad Corp. v. Western Pacific Railroad Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1953
- Shenker v. Baltimore & Ohio RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- H. Keith Zahn v. International Paper CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1972
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.