John M. May v. Alan Greenspan
Opinion
292 U.S.App.D.C. 85
NOTICE: D.C. Circuit Local Rule 11(c) states that unpublished orders, judgments, and explanatory memoranda may not be cited as precedents, but counsel may refer to unpublished dispositions when the binding or preclusive effect of the disposition, rather than its quality as precedent, is relevant.
John M. MAY, Appellant,
v.
Alan GREENSPAN.
No. 90-5235.
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
May 16, 1991.
Before SILBERMAN, BUCKLEY and STEPHEN F. WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Upon consideration of the motion for summary affirmance, the response thereto, the reply, and the rebuttal, it is
ORDERED that the motion be granted substantially for the reasons stated by the district court in its order filed July 17, 1990. The merits of the parties' positions are so clear so as to justify 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
946 F.2d 1565 (John M. May v. Alan Greenspan) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.