Smith v. Haden

D.C. Circuit

Smith v. Haden

69 F.3d 606, 314 U.S. App. D.C. 442, 1995 WL 686063

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit·Decided November 21, 1995·No. Nos. 95-7014, 95-7033·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

[607] JUDGMENT

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

[607] JUDGMENT

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).

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

Pincite

69 F.3d 606 (Smith v. Haden) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related