# Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport Board v. Inet Airport Systems, Inc.

> Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 6, 2016 · 821 F.3d 643

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8407310

## Case

- **Full name:** DALLAS/FORT WORTH INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT BOARD v. INET AIRPORT SYSTEMS, INCORPORATED Michael F. Colaco Hartford Fire Insurance Company, INET Airport Systems, L.L.C., as Successor in Interest to Inet Airport Systems, Incorporated, Defendants-Appellees The Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport Board v. INET Airport Systems, Incorporated INET Airport Systems, L.L.C., as Successor in Interest to Inet Airport Systems, Incorporated
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- **Decided:** May 6, 2016
- **Citations:** 821 F.3d 643; 2016 WL 2621411
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Judges:** Clement, Haynes, Marmolejo
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8407310

## Opinion text

ON PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING
ORDER:
The petition for panel rehearing filed by Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport *644 Board is DENIED. Among other arguments in the petition, DFW contends that the statement in footnote 2 of our opinion that the parties “do not mention or challenge the district court’s dismissal of claims against-Colaco” is incorrect, as Co-laco was mentioned in DFW’s brief on appeal. Although it is true that Colaco was “mentioned,” we conclude that this fact does not alter the result in the case as DFW failed to adequately discuss the alleged liability of Colaco and failed to adequately brief any error in Colaco’s dismissal. See, e.g., United States v. Charles, 469 F.3d 402, 408 (5th Cir.2006) (“[The defendant] raises this argument in a one-sentence footnote and provides no authority for the proposition. Inadequately briefed issues are deemed abandoned.”); Dardar v. Lafourche Realty Co., 985 F.2d 824, 831 (5th Cir.1993) (“Questions posed for appellate review but inadequately briefed are considered abandoned.”).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8407310. Public record. Not legal advice.