Rusmisell v. Smith

Fourth Circuit

Rusmisell v. Smith

36 F. App'x 527

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided June 14, 2002·No. No. 01-2470·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Betty M. Rusmisell and Ann Rusmisell appeal the district court’s orders awarding attorney’s fees and costs in accordance with the methodology of Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, 488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir.1974), and denying their motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Rusmisell v. Smith, No. CA-98-23-2 (N.D.W. Va. Nov. 5, and Dec. 3, 2001). We deny the motion to strike informal briefs and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the [528] materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

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

PER CURIAM.

Betty M. Rusmisell and Ann Rusmisell appeal the district court’s orders awarding attorney’s fees and costs in accordance with the methodology of Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, 488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir.1974), and denying their motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Rusmisell v. Smith, No. CA-98-23-2 (N.D.W. Va. Nov. 5, and Dec. 3, 2001). We deny the motion to strike informal briefs and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the [528] materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

Rusmisell v. Smith, 36 F. App'x 527 (4th Cir. 2002).

Pincite

36 F. App'x 527 (Rusmisell v. Smith) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.