Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

165 F.3d 1015

Docket Docket No. 97-6310.

Zingher v. Vermont Division of Vocational Rehabilitation

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals

Argued Jan. 14, 1999. Decided Feb. 1, 1999.

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1999-02-01

4 counsel of record

Relies on Patterson v. McLean Credit Union · General Building Contractors Assn., Inc. v. Pennsylvania · Mylan Laboratories, Inc. v. Matkari

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1999-02-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 111 later decisions — most recently January 2022 · most notably Elizabeth Perry v. Judy Woodward the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Bernalillo (1999), Spriggs v. Diamond Auto Glass (2001)

28 federal appellate · 21 district ·

6801999200020102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Appeal from the dismissal of a complaint (William K. Sessions III, Judge ) as it failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and was barred by res judicata. We affirm.

Jane M. Hunt, Coudert Brothers (Douglas F. Broder, of counsel), New York, New York, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Robert D. Zingher, pro se, Burlington, Vermont, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Dena Monahan, General Counsel, Department of Aging and Disabilities, Waterbury, Vermont, for Defendants-Appellees Vermont Division of Vocational Rehabilitation and David Yacavone.

Melissa A.D. Ranaldo, Assistant United States Attorney for the District of Vermont (Charles R. Tetzlaff, United States Attorney), Burlington, Vermont, for Defendants-Appellees Department of Education and Richard Riley.

Before: WINTER, Chief Judge, VAN GRAAFEILAND, and KEARSE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

¶1

Robert D. Zingher appeals from Judge Sessions's dismissal of his complaint because it failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and was barred by res judicata. We affirm for substantially the reasons stated by the district court as enunciated in the recommendations of Magistrate Judge Niedermeier. See Zingher v. Yacavone, 30 F.Supp.2d 446 (D.Vt.1997). This decision in no way prejudices Zingher from seeking future services from the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation to which he may be entitled under state or federal law.

/165/f3d/1015 · .json · Public domain