The opinion
PER CURIAM:
This Court in its opinion, 648 F.2d 293 (5th Cir. 1981) declared that the record on appeal raised questions of compliance with
Singleton III
which it then undertook to adjudicate.
The School District’s petition for rehearing raises serious questions whether it was proper for this Court to draw these conclusions since the District Court, 488 F.Supp. 75 , had ruled that
Singleton
was not involved, which effectively cut off any opportunity of contrary proof.
Consequently, the petition for rehearing is granted, the opinion is vacated and the case is remanded to the District Court for full factual hearing and determination of whether (i)
Singleton III
is involved (ii)
Singleton III
was violated (iii) Cousin was collaterally estopped to assert
Singleton III
violation (iv) Cousin was qualified (v) the statute of limitations or laches had run as to sustainable
Singleton III
claims.
See Peques v. Morehouse Parish School Bd.,
632 F.2d 1279 , 1282 n.3 (5th Cir. 1980) and (vi) all other related issues.
Left to the initial determination of the District Court is the matter of the extent, if any, the present record shall or may be considered along with newly offered evidence.
REMANDED.