Rozett v. Parke-Davis Division of Warner-Lambert Co.

D.C. Circuit

Rozett v. Parke-Davis Division of Warner-Lambert Co.

30 F. App'x 7

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedFebruary 12, 2002

DocketNo. 01-7036

StatusPublished

This text of 30 F. App'x 7 (Rozett v. Parke-Davis Division of Warner-Lambert Co.) 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

Rozett v. Parke-Davis Division of Warner-Lambert Co., 30 F. App'x 7 (D.C. Cir. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs and arguments of the parties. The court is satisfied that the issues presented occasion no need for an opinion. See D.C.Cir. Rule 36(b). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed January 23, 2001, awarding summary judgment in favor of the defendants, Parke-Davis Division of Warner-Lambert Company and Harold Stevens, M.D., be affirmed for the reasons stated by the district court in its memorandum opinion of the same date.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc. See Fed.R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.

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

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs and arguments of the parties. The court is satisfied that the issues presented occasion no need for an opinion. See D.C.Cir. Rule 36(b). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed January 23, 2001, awarding summary judgment in favor of the defendants, Parke-Davis Division of Warner-Lambert Company and Harold Stevens, M.D., be affirmed for the reasons stated by the district court in its memorandum opinion of the same date.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc. See Fed.R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 F. App'x 7, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rozett-v-parke-davis-division-of-warner-lambert-co-cadc-2002.