Case Name: INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TRANSCON LINES, a corporation; Leonard L. Gumport, Chapter 7 Trustee, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1992-06-17
Citations: 153 F.2d 1503
Docket Number: No. 92-55036
Parties: INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TRANSCON LINES, a corporation; Leonard L. Gumport, Chapter 7 Trustee, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: BOOCHEVER, NORRIS and NOONAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Bankruptcy Reporter
Volume: 153
Pages: 1503–1518

Head Matter:
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TRANSCON LINES, a corporation; Leonard L. Gumport, Chapter 7 Trustee, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 92-55036.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted April 8, 1992.
Decided June 17, 1992.
As Amended on Denial of Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc April 5, 1993.
See also 981 F.2d 402, 968 F.2d 798.
Richard S. Berger, Tuttle & Taylor, Los Angeles, CA, for defendants-appellees.
Henri F. Rush, Deputy Gen. Counsel, I.C.C., Office of Gen. Counsel, Washington, DC; Stephen L. Day, Regional Counsel, I.C.C., Seattle, WA, for plaintiff-appellant.
Stanley O. Sher, Sher & Blackwell, Washington, DC, amicus Intern. Broth, of Teamsters.
Joseph L. Steinfeld, Jr., Sims, Walker, & Steinfeld, and Kim D. Mann, Shawn, Mann & Niedermayer, Washington, DC, amicus Creditors Alliance to Preserve Freight Undercharge Assets.
Mary Kay Reynolds, Kroll & Tract, Los Angeles, CA, for amicus Transp. Claims & Prevention Council, Inc., et al.
Daniel J. Sweeney and John M. Cutler, Jr., McCarthy, Sweeney & Harkaway, for amici curiae Health and Personal Care Distribution Conference and Nat. Small Shipments Traffic Conference.
Before: BOOCHEVER, NORRIS and NOONAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER
The opinion as amended December 10, 1992 is hereby further amended by striking the amendment made December 10, 1992 and restoring the opinion, as follows:
In Slip op., p. 14392, paragraph 15 is hereby deleted and replaced by the following:
[Editor's Note: Amendment has been incorporated within published opinion.]
With this amendment, the panel as constituted in the above case has voted to deny the petition for rehearing and to reject the suggestion for rehearing en banc.
The full court has been advised of the suggestion for en banc rehearing, and no judge of the court has requested a vote on the suggestion for rehearing en banc. Fed. R.App.P. 85(b).
The petition for rehearing is denied, and the suggestion for a rehearing en banc is rejected.
The parties are reminded of Circuit Rule 4.6.b. Inasmuch as the opinion has been restored to its October 23, 1992 form the court deems it highly improbable that the amendment affected by this order offers any ground for a petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc.
This court's order granting Appellant Interstate Commerce Commission's motion to stay the mandate expired on January 7, 1993. The Motion filed on March 8, 1993 of Appellant Interstate Commerce Commission to stay issuance of the mandate is DENIED.
The mandate shall issue forthwith.