Case Name: J. DOE, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Linda REIVITZ and John Erickson, Defendants-Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Otis BOWEN and Kay Wilmoth, Third-Party-Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1988-03-22
Citations: 842 F.2d 194
Docket Number: Nos. 86-2350, 86-2561
Parties: J. DOE, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Linda REIVITZ and John Erickson, Defendants-Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Otis BOWEN and Kay Wilmoth, Third-Party-Defendants.
Judges: Before WOOD and CUDAHY, Circuit Judges, and ESCHBACH, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 842
Pages: 194–194

Head Matter:
J. DOE, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Linda REIVITZ and John Erickson, Defendants-Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Otis BOWEN and Kay Wilmoth, Third-Party-Defendants.
Nos. 86-2350, 86-2561.
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
March 22, 1988.
Before WOOD and CUDAHY, Circuit Judges, and ESCHBACH, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
ORDER
The court, sua sponte, amends the opinion in the above-entitled cause, issued September 28, 1987, 830 F.2d 1441 (7th Cir.1987), by adding the following language to footnote 11 at page 1448 of the opinion:
After we issued our opinion in this case, we received a letter from plaintiffs' counsel suggesting that some of the above-cited sections apply to the Wisconsin program since that program is not entirely a general WIN program. Neither the state nor the federal government, however, filed a petition for rehearing, and this portion of our statutory analysis remains applicable to the extent the program is a general WIN program. Further, nothing in the letter casts any doubt on the remainder of our analysis or on the result.