Rosenthal & Co. v. Rothwell Cotton Co.
7th Cir.
Citation analytics
How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this case
Most recently cited by10
- 2026Atom J. Smith v. Dodge County Human Services, Kelly M. Enright, Evan D. Berbe, Sabrina Nehr, Katie Gordon, Nick Hafenstein, Katherine Hafenstein, Sgt. Stocks, Horicon Police Department, Lisa L. Grycowski, Rylee Umland, DCHS Health Dept. Directors, Ashley Hartman, Judge Martin J. Devries, Michael Robert Devitt, David Kianovsky, Tia Williams, Wendy McGurk, Sabrina, and Foster Parents E.D. Wis.
- 2026Ammerman E.D. Wis.
- 2025R & R Packaging, Inc. v. Evenflo Company, Inc. W.D. Ark.
- 2025Forester-Hoare v. Freeman E.D. Wis.
- 2025Block v. United States Government D. Minnesota
- 2024Gidarisingh v. Bauer E.D. Wis.
- 2024Basso Builders Inc v. Town of Geneva E.D. Wis.
- 2024Forester-Hoare v. Kind E.D. Wis.
- 2024Smartmatic USA Corp. v. Lindell D. Minnesota
- 2023Forester-Hoare v. Kind E.D. Wis.
Cites 1 case
- United States v. Hornick
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Opinion
ROSENTHAL & COMPANY, a partnership, and FGL Commodity Services, Inc., an Iowa Corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. ROTHWELL COTTON COMPANY, INC., a Texas Corporation, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges
- Before BAUER, Chief Judge, and FLAUM, Circuit Judge and REYNOLDS, Senior District Judge .
ORDER
On consideration of the petition for rehearing with suggestion for rehearing en banc filed in the above-entitled cause by Defendant-Appellant Rothwell Cotton Company, Inc., no judge in active service has requested a vote thereon, and all of the judges on the original panel have voted to deny the petition for rehearing. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the aforesaid petition for rehearing be, and the same is, DENIED.
In addition, the court amends its opinion of August 24, 1987 as follows:
Footnote 1, on page 249, should read as follows: delete everything after “reconsider in the district court.” on page 6; insert instead: “ ‘Arguments not raised in the briefs are waived....’ United States v. Hornick, 815 F.2d 1156, 1159 (7th Cir.1987) (citation omitted). Because Rothwell ignored this contention until oral argument, the court will not consider what role, if any, Rosenthal’s “judicial admission” played in this action.”
IT IS SO ORDERED.