Davis v. Howard University

D.C. Circuit

Davis v. Howard University

56 F. App'x 2

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedFebruary 13, 2003

DocketNo. 02-7013

StatusPublished

This text of 56 F. App'x 2 (Davis v. Howard University) 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

Davis v. Howard University, 56 F. App'x 2 (D.C. Cir. 2003).

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. It is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the judgment of the district court be affirmed. By not raising the objection before the jury retired to consider its verdict, appellant Alicia Davis did not preserve for appeal the issue of whether the district court committed a reversible error in its jury instruction according to Fed. R. Civ. P. 51. See Graham v. Davis, 880 F.2d 1414, 1419-20 (D.C.Cir.1989).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. R. 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. It is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the judgment of the district court be affirmed. By not raising the objection before the jury retired to consider its verdict, appellant Alicia Davis did not preserve for appeal the issue of whether the district court committed a reversible error in its jury instruction according to Fed. R. Civ. P. 51. See Graham v. Davis, 880 F.2d 1414, 1419-20 (D.C.Cir.1989).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. R. 41.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 F. App'x 2, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-howard-university-cadc-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack