# Searles v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority

> Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · April 27, 1993 · 990 F.2d 789

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9009825

## Case

- **Full name:** Hester Lee SEARLES, Individually, as Administrator of the Estate of Metz John Searles, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, in No. 92-1573 v. SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Hester Lee SEARLES, Individually, as Administrator of the Estate of Metz John Searles, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, in No. 92-1574 v. J. Clayton UNDERCOFLER Frank W. Jenkins Mary C. Harris Thomas M. Hayward Richard E. Kurtz H. Patrick Swygert Andrew L. Warren Louis J. Gambaccini Howard J. Roberts, Jr. Charles W. Thomas R.O. Swindell Patrick Nowakowski Richard L. Fasy Joseph Russell John T. Prader Sandra E. Peopples George Spence Jeff McCormick Hal S. Davidow W. Eric Vogel R.M. Hergenrader Charles Baum Stephen C. Stitsworth Henry David, Jr. Gerald P. Lynch, Jr. Anthony Theodoro William Swent William C. Glenn Dominic Principe Gino Roman Carmen Digaetano William Gulden Dennis Miller Robert Burrell Miguel Moncayo Gene Yee Larry Jackson R. Lyman Paul Gary El James Sweeney Robert Perazzo Richard Lineman Joseph Farkus, Individually and in their Official Capacities
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
- **Decided:** April 27, 1993
- **Citations:** 990 F.2d 789
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing
- **Judges:** Alito, Becker, Cowen, Greenberg, Hutchinson, Lewis, Mansmann, Nygaard, Roth, Scirica, Seitz, Sloviter, Stapleton
- **Cited by:** 7 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/9009825

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- affirming dismissal of complaint; "The district court did not rule on the class certification because it ultimately concluded that plaintiff failed to state a claim.’’

## Opinion text

SUR PETITION FOR REHEARING
May 21, 1993.
PRESENT: SLOVITER, Chief Judge, BECKER, STAPLETON, MANSMANN, GREENBERG, HUTCHINSON, SCIRICA, COWEN, NYGAARD, ALITO, ROTH, LEWIS and SEITZ, * Circuit Judges.
The petition for rehearing filed by appellants in the above captioned matter having been' submitted to the judges who participated in the decision of this Court and to all the other available circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service, and no judge who concurred in the decision having asked for rehearing, and a majority of the circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service not having voted for rehearing by the court in banc, the petition for rehearing is denied.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9009825. Public record. Not legal advice.