Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

948 F.2d 781

Docket No. 90-5396.

Stephen J. Faherty, Sr. v. Kathleen P. Utgoff

District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1991-10-24

Relies on Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · Poland v. Arizona · Kirchberg v. Feenstra

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1991-10-24

NOTICE: D.C. Circuit Local Rule 11(c) states that unpublished orders, judgments, and explanatory memoranda may not be cited as precedents, but counsel may refer to unpublished dispositions when the binding or preclusive effect of the disposition, rather than its quality as precedent, is relevant.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

¶2

ORDERED that the motion for summary affirmance be granted. 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). The district court's findings are not clearly erroneous. See Krodel v. Young, 748 F.2d 701, 706 (D.C.Cir.1984), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 817 (1985); see also Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564 (1985).

¶3

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/781 · .json · Public domain