Before ROBINSON, Circuit Judge, and WRIGHT and MACKINNON, Senior Circuit Judges.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
Associates Professional Corporation, D.C., et al.; Stanley
Wilmes, Appellant, v. Bechtel Associates Professional
Corporation, D.C., et al.; Calvin Walker, et al., Appellants, v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit
Authority; John Warren Clanagan, Appellant, v. Bechtel
Associates Professional Corporation, D.C., et al.; Howard
L. Eighmey, et al., Appellants, v. Washington Metropolitan
Area Transit Authority; Glenwood Williams, Appellant, v.
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
Nos. 82-2017, 82-1784, 82-1809, 82-1813, 82-1899, 82-2062, 82-2063, 82-2148, 82-2374, 82-2458, 82-2459, 82-2525, 82-2529, 82-2530, 82-2531, 83-1003 1986.CDC.291
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Civil Action Nos. 81-00963, 81-01261, 81-01125, 81-01481, 81-00114, 81-03057 and 82-00999, On Petition for Rehearing.
PER CURIAM: Appellants petition the court to reconsider its supplemental judgment of August 27, 1984, *fn1 affirming the district Court's prior rulings that appellee Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority enjoyed immunity from appellants' tort claims. The petition comes in light of legislation, enacted shortly after our judgment issued, that assertedly dictates the outcome of the case. Appellants also endeavor to raise new questions about WMATA's immunity. Because appellants' arguments are properly to be addressed, not on a petition for rehearing, but on a group of appeals from judgments of the District Court following our supplemental judgment, *fn2 we deny the petition. I
Appellants are workers allegedly injured while performing underground construction work on the subway system serving the District of Columbia and its environs. They filed negligence actions against WMATA and others, and in 1982, the District Court ...