Ernest S. Hendry, Jr. v. Allen E. Turner, T/a Allen E. Turner Associates

16 F.3d 409, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 7281, 1994 WL 18084
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 25, 1994
Docket91-2371
StatusPublished

This text of 16 F.3d 409 (Ernest S. Hendry, Jr. v. Allen E. Turner, T/a Allen E. Turner Associates) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ernest S. Hendry, Jr. v. Allen E. Turner, T/a Allen E. Turner Associates, 16 F.3d 409, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 7281, 1994 WL 18084 (4th Cir. 1994).

Opinion

16 F.3d 409
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Ernest S. HENDRY, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Allen E. TURNER, t/a Allen E. Turner Associates, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 91-2371.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted March 17, 1993.
Decided Jan. 25, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Chief District Judge. (CA-91-408-A)

Ernest S. Hendry, Jr., appellant pro se.

Marc H. Botzin, Alexandria, VA, for appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See I.O.P. 36.5 and 36.6.

E.D.Va.

AFFIRMED.

Before WIDENER and WILKInSON, Circuit Judges, and SPROUSE, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

Ernest S. Hendry, Jr., appeals from the district court's orders granting Defendant's motion for summary judgment and denying Hendry's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on Defendant's counterclaim against Hendry. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Hendry v. Turner, No. CA-91-408-A (E.D. Va. Oct. 31 & Nov. 1, 1991). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
16 F.3d 409, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 7281, 1994 WL 18084, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ernest-s-hendry-jr-v-allen-e-turner-ta-allen-e-tur-ca4-1994.