Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

948 F.2d 1337

Docket No. 91-5004.

Davis-El v. Kemp

District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals

Nov. 22, 1991. Rehearing Denied Feb. 5, 1992.

District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1991-11-22

Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently February 1992

11 federal appellate ·

Relies on Kirchberg v. Feenstra · Taxpayers Watchdog, Inc. v. Stanley · Walker v. Washington

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1991-11-22

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

NOTICE: D.C. Circuit Local Rule 11(c) states that unpublished orders, judgments, and explanatory memoranda may not be cited as precedents, but counsel may refer to unpublished dispositions when the binding or preclusive effect of the disposition, rather than its quality as precedent, is relevant.

Before HARRY T. EDWARDS, SILBERMAN and STEPHEN F. WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

¶1

Upon consideration of the motion for summary affirmance, the order to show cause, the response thereto, and the reply, it is

¶2

ORDERED that the order to show cause be discharged. It is

¶3

FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for summary affirmance be granted for the reasons stated by the district court in its order filed November 13, 1990. The merits of the parties' positions are so clear as to justify summary action. See Taxpayers Watchdog, Inc. v. Stanley, 819 F.2d 294, 297 (D.C.Cir.1987) (per curiam); Walker v. Washington, 627 F.2d 541, 545 (D.C.Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 994 (1980).

¶4

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 15.

/948/f2d/1337 · .json · Public domain