Court Opinion

ID: 9458753
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 21:00:36.701562+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:35:52.864283
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiffs have moved for rehearing and suggested rehearing in banc, calling to our attention Cooner v. United States, 276 F.2d 220 (4 Cir. 1960), not cited to us or considered in either opinion in the main appeal.
While Judge Craven agrees with plaintiffs that Cooner distinguishes and undermines the authority of United States v. Eleazer, 177 F.2d 914 (4 Cir. 1949), upon which the majority opinion relies, Judge Winter and Judge Russell read Cooner to rest solely on the law of New York while Eleazer and the instant case rest solely on the law of North Carolina. Further, they read Cooner to recognize that the law of New York does not prevail throughout the country. Hence, they conclude that any criticism of Eleazer contained in Cooner is dictum and they should not depart from the holding of Eleazer unless and until the courts of North Carolina indicate that it was wrongly decided.
The motion for rehearing is denied with Judge Craven dissenting on the *836basis of his opinion previously filed and his reading of Cooner. No judge in active service has requested a poll on the suggestion for rehearing in banc.
Motion denied.