
    Charlotte CUNO et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. DAIMLER CHRYSLER CORPORATION et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 01-3960.
    United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
    Sept. 22, 2006.
    Terry J. Lodge, Toledo, OH, Peter D. Enrich, Northeastern University School of Law, Boston, MA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
    Charles A. Rothfeld, Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw, Chicago, IL, John T. Landwehr, Albin Bauer, II, Eastman & Smith, Samuel J. Nugent, Office of the City of Toledo Law Department, Truman A. Greenwood, Theodore M. Rowen, James P. Silk, Jr., Spengler Nathanson, Barbara E. Herring, City of Toledo Department of Law, Toledo, OH, Sharon A. Jennings, Asst. Atty. General, Office of the Attorney General of Ohio, Stephen P. Carney, Douglas R. Cole, Robert C. Maier, Office of the Attorney General, Columbus, OH, Miriam R. Nemetz, Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw, Washington, DC, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: SILER, DAUGHTREY, and COLE, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

This case is before us on remand from the Supreme Court “for dismissal of the plaintiffs’ challenge to the franchise tax credit.” We therefore remand the case to the district court with the direction to dismiss the case in accordance with the opinion announced by the Supreme Court in DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, — U.S. —, 126 S.Ct. 1854, 164 L.Ed.2d 589 (2006).

SO ORDERED.  