Smith v. Haden

69 F.3d 606, 314 U.S. App. D.C. 442, 1995 WL 686063
CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
DecidedNovember 21, 1995
DocketNos. 95-7014, 95-7033
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 69 F.3d 606 (Smith v. Haden) 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
Smith v. Haden, 69 F.3d 606, 314 U.S. App. D.C. 442, 1995 WL 686063 (D.C. Cir. 1995).

Opinion

[607]*607JUDGMENT

This case was heard on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs and arguments by counsel. Upon consideration thereof, it is

Ordered that the judgment from which this appeal has been taken be affirmed substantially for the reasons stated in the district court’s memorandum opinion of December 23, 1994. See Smith v. Haden, 872 F.Supp. 1040 (D.D.C.1994). The cross-appeal is therefore moot.

The clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition of any timely petition for rehearing. See D.C.Cir.Rule 41(a)(1).

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

Related

Kituskie v. Corbman
714 A.2d 1027 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
69 F.3d 606, 314 U.S. App. D.C. 442, 1995 WL 686063, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-haden-cadc-1995.