Matthews v. Talcon, Inc.
170 F. App'x 637
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit·Decided March 8, 2006·No. No. 05-10528; D.C. Docket No. 03-00325-CV-FTM-33-DNF·Published
Opinion
Under the particular circumstances of this case, we cannot conclude that the attorney’s signature on the charge is sufficient; nor can we conclude that this potentially technical deficiency has been cured in this case.
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Matthews v. Talcon, Inc., 170 F. App'x 637 (11th Cir. 2006).
170 F. App'x 637 (Matthews v. Talcon, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.