Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

21 F.3d 421

Docket Nos. 93-2150, 93-2381.

Celeste G. Broughton v. Charles L. Smith, Iii, Individually and as Agent for Davidson and Jones Development Company Martha Smith, Individually and as Agent for Charles L. Smith, III Davidson and Jones Development Company City of Raleigh, North Carolina City Council of Raleigh, North Carolina Norma D. Burns Mary Cates Geoffrey Elting Anne Franklin Charles Meeker Mary W. Nooe, Individually and as Raleigh, North Carolina City Councilor Avery C. Upchurch, Individually and as Mayor and Raleigh, North Carolina Councilor, Celeste G. Broughton v. Charles L. Smith, Iii, Individually and as Agent for Davidson and Jones Development Company Martha Smith, Individually and as Agent for Charles L. Smith, III Davidson and Jones Development Company City of Raleigh, North Carolina City Council of Raleigh, North Carolina Norma D. Burns Mary Cates Geoffry Elting Anne Franklin Charles Meeker Mary W. Nooe, Individually and as Raleigh, North Carolina City Councilor Avery C. Upchurch, Individually and as Mayor and Raleigh, North Carolina Councilor

Full caption · 2 consolidated cases

  • Celeste G. BROUGHTONv.Charles L. SMITH, III, individually and as agent for Davidson and Jones Development Company; Martha Smith, individually and as agent for Charles L. Smith, III; Davidson and Jones Development Company; City of Raleigh, North Carolina; City Council of Raleigh, North Carolina; Norma D. Burns; Mary Cates; Geoffrey Elting; Anne Franklin; Charles Meeker; Mary W. Nooe, individually and as Raleigh, North Carolina City Councilor; Avery C. Upchurch, individually and as Mayor and Raleigh, North Carolina Cou
  • BROUGHTONv.Charles L. SMITH, III, individually and as agent for Davidson and Jones Development Company; Martha Smith, individually and as agent for Charles L. Smith, III; Davidson and Jones Development Company; City of Raleigh, North Carolina; City Council of Raleigh, North Carolina; Norma D. Burns; Mary Cates; Geoffry Elting; Anne Franklin; Charles Meeker; Mary W. Nooe, individually and as Raleigh, North Carolina City Councilor; Avery C. Upchurch, individually and as Mayor and Raleigh, North Carolina Coun

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals

Submitted Feb. 16, 1994. Decided April 20, 1994.

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1994-04-20

Relies on American Lifeguard Association Incorporated v. American Red Cross American Lifeguard Association Incorporated

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1994-04-20

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently November 2014

3 federal appellate ·

30199420002010decided

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 →

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 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 Fourth Circuit.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District Judge. (CA-90-193-5-BR)

Celeste G. Broughton, appellant pro se.

Kurt Eric Linquist, II, Leboeuf, Lamb, Leiby & Macrae, Raleigh, NC; Michael Terry Medford, Manning, Fulton & Skinner, Raleigh, NC; Thomas Alexander McCormick, Jr., City Attorney, Raleigh, NC, for appellees.

E.D.N.C.

AFFIRMED.

Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINSON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

¶1

Appellant appeals from the district court's orders granting summary judgment for all the Defendants, and denying Plaintiff's motions for new trial or reconsideration under Fed.R.Civ.P. 52, 59, and 60. Our review of the record and the district court's opinions discloses that these appeals are without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Broughton v. Smith, No. CA-90-193-5-BR (E.D.N.C. Aug. 9, 1993; Sept. 28, 1993). We deny Appellant's motion to stay decision pending the district court's action on a post-judgment motion. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

/21/f3d/421 · .json · Public domain