Vey v. Williams

Ninth Circuit

Vey v. Williams

38 F. App'x 465

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJune 19, 2002

DocketNo. 01-55702; D.C. No. CV-00-01145-BTM

StatusPublished

This text of 38 F. App'x 465 (Vey v. Williams) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Vey v. Williams, 38 F. App'x 465 (9th Cir. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

*

David Vey, Vey Development, Inc., Richard T. Hartley and Hartley-Vey West LLC (collectively Vey) appeal the district court’s decision, which affirmed the order of the bankruptcy court that a breach of contract¹ by Ronald Williams and Palo Alto Town and Country Village, Inc., (collectively Williams), was not the cause of any damages to Vey. We affirm.

In its cogent “Order Affirming Bankruptcy Court’s Order Denying Claim of David Vey, Vey Development, Inc., Richard T. Hartley, and Hartley-Vey West LLC,” dated March 21, 2001, the district court determined that the bankruptcy court did not err when it decided that the breach of contract was not the cause of any damages to Vey. We agree and adopt that order as our own.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM

*

David Vey, Vey Development, Inc., Richard T. Hartley and Hartley-Vey West LLC (collectively Vey) appeal the district court’s decision, which affirmed the order of the bankruptcy court that a breach of contract¹ by Ronald Williams and Palo Alto Town and Country Village, Inc., (collectively Williams), was not the cause of any damages to Vey. We affirm.

In its cogent “Order Affirming Bankruptcy Court’s Order Denying Claim of David Vey, Vey Development, Inc., Richard T. Hartley, and Hartley-Vey West LLC,” dated March 21, 2001, the district court determined that the bankruptcy court did not err when it decided that the breach of contract was not the cause of any damages to Vey. We agree and adopt that order as our own.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 F. App'x 465, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vey-v-williams-ca9-2002.