Anaman v. Progressive Northern Insurance

D.C. Circuit

Anaman v. Progressive Northern Insurance

22 F. App'x 15

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedDecember 20, 2001

DocketNo. 01-7047

StatusPublished

This text of 22 F. App'x 15 (Anaman v. Progressive Northern Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Anaman v. Progressive Northern Insurance, 22 F. App'x 15 (D.C. Cir. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. The court has determined that the issues presented occasion no need for an opinion. See Fed. R.App. P. 36; D.C.Cir. Rule 36(b). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s judgment of February 22, 2001, be affirmed. Appellant failed to raise in district court his argument that appellee Thomas’ attorney made a judicial admission during opening statements, and there are no exceptional circumstances warranting the consideration of the issue for the first time on appeal. See District of Columbia v. Air Florida, Inc., 750 F.2d 1077, 1084 (D.C.Cir.1984). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s motion to reopen his case. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 401 U.S. 321, 331, 91 S.Ct. 795, 28 L.Ed.2d 77 (1971); Wilson v. Good Humor Corp., 757 F.2d 1293, 1300 (D.C.Cir.1985). Appellant’s remaining claims, regarding potential jury prejudice, are moot because the jury never decided appellant’s case. See Mitchell v. Maynard, 80 F.3d 1433, 1447 (10th Cir.1996) (after district court granted motion for judgment as a matter of law, claim jury prejudiced by seeing defendant in shackles moot).

The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. The court has determined that the issues presented occasion no need for an opinion. See Fed. R.App. P. 36; D.C.Cir. Rule 36(b). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s judgment of February 22, 2001, be affirmed. Appellant failed to raise in district court his argument that appellee Thomas’ attorney made a judicial admission during opening statements, and there are no exceptional circumstances warranting the consideration of the issue for the first time on appeal. See District of Columbia v. Air Florida, Inc., 750 F.2d 1077, 1084 (D.C.Cir.1984). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s motion to reopen his case. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 401 U.S. 321, 331, 91 S.Ct. 795, 28 L.Ed.2d 77 (1971); Wilson v. Good Humor Corp., 757 F.2d 1293, 1300 (D.C.Cir.1985). Appellant’s remaining claims, regarding potential jury prejudice, are moot because the jury never decided appellant’s case. See Mitchell v. Maynard, 80 F.3d 1433, 1447 (10th Cir.1996) (after district court granted motion for judgment as a matter of law, claim jury prejudiced by seeing defendant in shackles moot).

The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 F. App'x 15, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anaman-v-progressive-northern-insurance-cadc-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack