Smith v. Howard
This text of 843 F.2d 1392 (Smith v. Howard) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit.
No. 87-5854.
Diana Howard SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
William Thomas HOWARD, Defendant-Appellee.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
April 11, 1988.
Before KEITH and ALAN E. NORRIS, Circuit Judges, and GEORGE E. WOODS, District Judge.*
ORDER
This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination of the record and briefs, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a).
Upon consideration, we affirm the judgment of the district court for the reasons stated in its memorandum opinion and order filed July 1, 1987. Rule 9(b)(5), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.
The Honorable George E. Woods, U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
843 F.2d 1392, 1988 WL 31535, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-howard-ca6-1988.