Jane Austen Fagan v. Small Business Administration

19 F.3d 684, 305 U.S. App. D.C. 245, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 38304, 1992 WL 588174
CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
DecidedDecember 4, 1992
Docket92-5060
StatusUnpublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 19 F.3d 684 (Jane Austen Fagan v. Small Business Administration) 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
Jane Austen Fagan v. Small Business Administration, 19 F.3d 684, 305 U.S. App. D.C. 245, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 38304, 1992 WL 588174 (D.C. Cir. 1992).

Opinion

19 F.3d 684

305 U.S.App.D.C. 245

NOTICE: D.C. Circuit Local Rule 11(c) states that unpublished orders, judgments, and explanatory memoranda may not be cited as precedents, but counsel may refer to unpublished dispositions when the binding or preclusive effect of the disposition, rather than its quality as precedent, is relevant.
Jane Austen FAGAN, Appellant,
v.
SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION.

No. 92-5060.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Dec. 4, 1992.

Before SILBERMAN, BUCKLEY and KAREN LECRAFT HENDERSON, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the motion for summary affirmance, the response thereto and the reply, it is

ORDERED that the motion be granted. The district court correctly affirmed the finding of the Small Business Administration that Fagan could not demonstrate the financial potential for success required for admission to the section 8(a) program. See 13 C.F.R. Sec. 124.107(b). The merits of the parties' positions are so clear as to warrant summary action. See Taxpayers Watchdog, Inc. v. Stanley, 819 F.2d 294, 297 (D.C.Cir.1987) (per curiam); Walker v. Washington, 627 F.2d 541, 545 (D.C.Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 994 (1980).

The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition of any timely petition for rehearing. See D.C.Cir.Rule 15.

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

Related

Ridley v. VMT Long Term Care Management, Inc.
68 F. Supp. 3d 88 (District of Columbia, 2014)
North American Group, Inc. v. County of Wayne
106 F.3d 401 (Sixth Circuit, 1997)
Williams v. Glickman
936 F. Supp. 1 (District of Columbia, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
19 F.3d 684, 305 U.S. App. D.C. 245, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 38304, 1992 WL 588174, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jane-austen-fagan-v-small-business-administration-cadc-1992.