Case Name: Alvin WARREN and Alfred Warren, Appellants, v. HALSTEAD INDUSTRIES, INC., Appellee, and Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers Local Union No. 391, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1988-01-04
Citations: 835 F.2d 535
Docket Number: No. 85-1575
Parties: Alvin WARREN and Alfred Warren, Appellants, v. HALSTEAD INDUSTRIES, INC., Appellee, and Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers Local Union No. 391, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Defendants.
Judges: Before WINTER, Chief Judge, RUSSELL, WIDENER, HALL, PHILLIPS, MURNAGHAN, SPROUSE, CHAPMAN, WILKINSON, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, sitting En Banc.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 835
Pages: 535–536

Head Matter:
Alvin WARREN and Alfred Warren, Appellants, v. HALSTEAD INDUSTRIES, INC., Appellee, and Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers Local Union No. 391, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Defendants.
No. 85-1575.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Argued June 1, 1987.
Decided Jan. 4, 1988.
Harvey L. Kennedy, (Harvey L. Kennedy, III, Kennedy, Kennedy, Kennedy and Kennedy, Winston-Salem, N.C., on brief), for appellants.
James B. Spears, Jr., (Thomas A. Bright, Haynsworth, Baldwin, Miles, Johnson, Greaves and Edwards, Greenville, S.C., on brief), for appellee.
Prior reports: 802 F.2d 746, 613 F.Supp. 499.
Before WINTER, Chief Judge, RUSSELL, WIDENER, HALL, PHILLIPS, MURNAGHAN, SPROUSE, CHAPMAN, WILKINSON, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, sitting En Banc.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
After reargument of this case to the en banc court, the court is of opinion that the fact finding of the district court was not clearly erroneous. We are of opinion that the district court did not commit reversible error either in the facts that it found or in its methods.
We have examined the record and are of opinion that the facts found by the district court are supported by the record, are not clearly erroneous, and are plausible. They are largely based on testimony taken ore tenus in open court, which are entitled to heightened deference under Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 105 S.Ct. 1504, 84 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985). So far as they are not based on oral testimony, they are based on weight of the evidence and on documentary evidence, much of which was supported by oral testimony, and those fact findings are also supported by the record and are plausible.
We note that the opinion and judgment of the panel was vacated by the granting of rehearing en banc under Local Rule 35(c). We are now of opinion that the district court should be affirmed for the reasons expressed in its careful and thorough opinion.
AFFIRMED.