Case Name: Glenn NEWELL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. OXFORD MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendant; Julius L. LEVY, Jr. & Glenn Newell, Plaintiffs-Cross Defendants-Appellants, v. FSLIC as Receiver for Northlake Federal Savings & Loan Association, Intervenor-Cross-Claimant-Appellee; FSLIC, Receiver a/k/a Northlake Federal Savings & Loan Association, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Raymond F. KIDD, Jr., Defendant, William C. Terral, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1990-11-20
Citations: 918 F.2d 484
Docket Number: No. 90-3017
Parties: Glenn NEWELL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. OXFORD MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendant, Julius L. LEVY, Jr. & Glenn Newell, Plaintiffs-Cross Defendants-Appellants, v. FSLIC as Receiver for Northlake Federal Savings & Loan Association, Intervenor-Cross-Claimant-Appellee. FSLIC, Receiver a/k/a Northlake Federal Savings & Loan Association, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Raymond F. KIDD, Jr., Defendant, William C. Terral, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before KING, GARWOOD and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 918
Pages: 484–485

Head Matter:
Glenn NEWELL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. OXFORD MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendant, Julius L. LEVY, Jr. & Glenn Newell, Plaintiffs-Cross Defendants-Appellants, v. FSLIC as Receiver for Northlake Federal Savings & Loan Association, Intervenor-Cross-Claimant-Appellee. FSLIC, Receiver a/k/a Northlake Federal Savings & Loan Association, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Raymond F. KIDD, Jr., Defendant, William C. Terral, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 90-3017.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Nov. 20, 1990.
Louis R. Koerner, Jr., New Orleans, La., for appellants.
Robert P. Roberts, New Orleans, La., for appellees.

Opinion:
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
Before KING, GARWOOD and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
IT IS ORDERED that the petition for rehearing filed in the above entitled and numbered cause be and the same is hereby denied. Appellants did not, prior to their petition for rehearing, adequately raise in this Court the claim that the judgment below against them was improper because the notes were invalid or were not due and payable or were not so in an amount sufficient to support the judgment. See, e.g., United Paperworkers v. Champion International, 908 F.2d 1252, 1253 (5th Cir.1990); Villanueva v. CNA Insurance, 868 F.2d 684, 687 n. 5 (5th Cir.1989).