Morley v. Central Intelligence Agency

D.C. Circuit

Morley v. Central Intelligence Agency

599 F. App'x 1

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Morley v. Central Intelligence Agency. Read the opinion of the Court — 810 F.3d 841 →

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit·Decided February 20, 2015·No. No. 14-5230·Published

Opinion

[2]*2 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

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

ORDERED that the motion for summary affirmance be denied. The merits of the parties’ positions are not so clear as to warrant summary action. See Taxpayers Watchdog, Inc. v. Stanley, 819 F.2d 294, 297 (D.C.Cir.1987) (per curiam).

Because the court has determined that summary disposition is not in order, the Clerk is instructed to calendar this case for presentation to a merits panel.

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

[2]*2 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

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

ORDERED that the motion for summary affirmance be denied. The merits of the parties’ positions are not so clear as to warrant summary action. See Taxpayers Watchdog, Inc. v. Stanley, 819 F.2d 294, 297 (D.C.Cir.1987) (per curiam).

Because the court has determined that summary disposition is not in order, the Clerk is instructed to calendar this case for presentation to a merits panel.

Morley v. Central Intelligence Agency, 599 F. App'x 1 (D.C. Cir. 2015).

Pincite

599 F. App'x 1 (Morley v. Central Intelligence Agency) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related