Court Opinion

ID: 9483830
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 09:32:47.697951+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:49:51.730397
License: Public Domain

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
April 7, 1993.
Before REAYLEY, SMITH, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
JERRY E. SMITH, Circuit Judge:
The Petition for Rehearing is DENIED. Because the original panel opinion erroneously applied the Seventh Circuit standard to determine the appropriateness of an award of costs and attorney’s fees to the beneficiaries,1 however, the decision is hereby amended to revise only the discussion of costs and attorney’s fees to read as follows:

. Although we accept the beneficiaries’ contention that we must amend our original opinion in this case, we note that although they petition this court for rehearing primarily upon the ground that we applied the Seventh Circuit standard set forth in Production & Maintenance Employees' Local 504 v. Roadmaster Corp., 954 F.2d 1397, 1405 (7th Cir.1992), instead of the appropriate Fifth Circuit standard, it is the beneficiaries who cited only Seventh Circuit authority in their original brief and who, in their reply brief, failed to point out any deficiencies in CFI’s application of the Roadmaster standard.