Court Opinion

ID: 9776817
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 19:45:53.056747+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:42.997972
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON REHEARING
We append this brief statement in order to clarify a factual assertion in our earlier opinion. In that opinion’s fourth paragraph we suggested Judge Bue’s remand order came after Judge Sterling’s dismissal order. It did not. We should have said Judge Bue ordered a remand before the dismissal. The sequence makes no difference and played no part in our reasoning, but we wish to be punctilious about the facts.
Ordinarily we would simply withdraw our initial opinion and reissue it with the pertinent modification. In this case we take a slightly different course so that we may stress the irrelevance of the change. Appellants make much of the factual background in their motion for rehearing, alleging that the mistake was a cornerstone in our analysis. That is not so. Appellants further impute to us a variety of improper motives, including a predisposition to twist matters in favor of appellees at any cost. We realize the disappointment an unsuccessful litigant must feel, and we strive not to take offense at intemperate language— especially in motions for rehearing. But the accusation is unjustified in this ease because the law is simply with the appel-lees. The motion for rehearing is therefore denied.