# Mary Faye Skotak, George Jerry Skotak, and Eric Norman Skotak, Cross-Appellees v. Tenneco Resins, Inc., Cross-Appellant

> Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · March 26, 1992 · 953 F.2d 909

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9482472

## Case

- **Full name:** Mary Faye SKOTAK, George Jerry Skotak, and Eric Norman Skotak, Plaintiffs-Appellants, Cross-Appellees, v. TENNECO RESINS, INC., Defendant Appellee, Cross-Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- **Decided:** March 26, 1992
- **Citations:** 953 F.2d 909
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing
- **Judges:** Wisdom, King, Barksdale
- **Cited by:** 911 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/9482472

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that the non-moving party must designate or refer to evidence in response to a motion for summary judgment for the evidence to be "part of the competent summary judgment record before the court,” quoting Nissho-Iwai Am. Corp. v. Kline, 845 F.2d 1300, 1307 (5th Cir.1988)
- explaining that on summary judgment, although record is reviewed de novo, appellate court will not consider evidence or arguments not presented to the district court for its consideration on the motion
- stating that courts of appeals “will not consider evidence or arguments that were not presented to the district court for its consideration in ruling on the motion”
- holding that the defendant was not required to produce evidence negating causation

## Opinion text

ON SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC.
March 26, 1992.
Before WISDOM, KING and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
*923 PER CURIAM:
Treating the suggestion for rehearing en banc as a petition for panel rehearing, it is ordered that the petition for panel rehearing is DENIED. No member of the panel nor Judge in regular active service of this Court having requested that the Court be polled on rehearing en banc (Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure and Local Rule 35), the suggestion for Rehearing En Banc is DENIED. The three February B, 1992, opinions are revised as follows:

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9482472. Public record. Not legal advice.