# Murray Tillman v. Wheaton-Haven Recreation Association, Inc.

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · December 16, 1971 · 451 F.2d 1211

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9457594

## Case

- **Full name:** Murray TILLMAN Et Al., Appellants, v. WHEATON-HAVEN RECREATION ASSOCIATION, INC., Et Al., Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** December 16, 1971
- **Citations:** 451 F.2d 1211
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing
- **Judges:** Butzner, Winter, Craven, Haynsworth, Boreman
- **Cited by:** 16 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Reversed on other grounds by Tillman v. Wheaton-Haven Recreation Assn., Inc., 410 U.S. 431 (1973).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9457594

## Opinion text

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
PER CURIAM:
In the petition for rehearing the Court’s attention was invited to the answer to an interrogatory indicating that the membership list of Wheaton-Haven Recreation Association was full in the spring of 1968 when Dr. Press first became interested in considering a possible application for membership. That answer seems to be contradicted by an answer to another interrogatory reporting the admission of three new members before any intervening resignation, but finds general support in a deposition of a member of Wheaton-Haven’s board who championed the cause of the admission of Dr. Press.
The briefs, the appendices, and the findings of the district court all seemed to warrant the statement in the opinion that the membership list had never been full. That inadvertent misstatement is now corrected to reflect a full membership list in the spring of 1968. The result is unaffected, however, for it is clear that the membership did drop off thereafter, that Dr. Press would have been admitted without delay except for the fact that his submission of a formal application was foreclosed by the resolution adopted by the members in the fall of 1968, and that there has been no waiting list since then. The situation with respect to the presence or absence of vacancies in the membership list has relevance only prospectively from the date of that meeting of the membership.
The petition for rehearing and the suggestion for rehearing en banc having been considered, the court having been polled and less than a majority of the panel having voted for a rehearing and less than a majority of the court having voted for a rehearing en banc, the petition for rehearing and the suggestion for rehearing en banc are both denied.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9457594. Public record. Not legal advice.