Lamar M. Jolly Harriet T. Jolly v. Great Western Bank

45 F.3d 426, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 40376, 1994 WL 717626
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedDecember 29, 1994
Docket92-2138
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 45 F.3d 426 (Lamar M. Jolly Harriet T. Jolly v. Great Western Bank) 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
Lamar M. Jolly Harriet T. Jolly v. Great Western Bank, 45 F.3d 426, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 40376, 1994 WL 717626 (4th Cir. 1994).

Opinion

45 F.3d 426
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Lamar M. JOLLY; Harriet T. Jolly, Plaintiffs Appellants,
v.
GREAT WESTERN BANK, Defendant Appellee.

No. 92-2138.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 15, 1993.
Decided: Dec. 29, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CA-92-53, BK-91-42581-B)

Lamar M. Jolly, Harriet T. Jolly, Appellants Pro Se. Robyn Hylton Hansen, JONES, BLECHMAN, WOLTZ & KELLY, P.C., Newport News, VA, for Appellee.

E.D.Va.

AFFIRMED.

Before WIDENER, MURNAGHAN, and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellants appeal from the district court's order affirming the bankruptcy court's order dismissing their petition filed under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, with prejudice to their right to refile for a period of 180 days. 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. Jolly v. Great Western Bank, No. CA-92-53 (E.D. Va. Aug. 7, 1992). 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

Related

Joseph David Rice
W.D. North Carolina, 2025
Marcus C Purdy and Amanda J Purdy
E.D. North Carolina, 2023
In Re Van Eck
425 B.R. 54 (D. Connecticut, 2010)
In Re Norton
319 B.R. 671 (D. Utah, 2005)
Leavitt v. Soto (In Re Leavitt)
209 B.R. 935 (Ninth Circuit, 1997)
In Re Spear
203 B.R. 349 (D. Massachusetts, 1996)
Colonial Auto Center, Inc. v. Tomlin
184 B.R. 720 (W.D. Virginia, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
45 F.3d 426, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 40376, 1994 WL 717626, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lamar-m-jolly-harriet-t-jolly-v-great-western-bank-ca4-1994.