Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

11/17/87 Joseph L. Brown, Et Al., v. Oliver T. Carr

November 17, 1987

JOSEPH L. BROWN, ET AL., APPELLANTS

v.

OLIVER T. CARR, JR. 1987.CDC.488 DATE FILED: NOVEMBER 17, 1987



Before: RUTH B. GINSBURG and STARR, Circuit Judges, and GESELL,** District Judge.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Rules of the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals may limit citation of unpublished opinions. Please refer to the Rules of the United States Court of Appeals for this Circuit.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Civil Action No. 75-01606.

JUDGMENT

This is an appeal from a December 19, 1986 decision of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia granting defendant-appellee's motion for summary judgment. Upon consideration of the record from the district court, and the briefs and oral argument counsel addressed to this court, we conclude that the issues presented do not warrant a published opinion. See D.C. Cir. R. 14(c).

The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied plaintiff-appellants leave, sought in April 1984, to amend a complaint originally filed in 1975, and thereby to reshape and enlarge the controversy by joining several additional defendants, making many new allegations, and engaging in more discovery. That court, in its December 19, 1986 Memorandum, cogently explained and correctly applied the controlling precedent: Eastern Railroad Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, 365 U.S. 127 (1961); Federal Prescription Service, Inc. v. American Pharmaceutical Ass'n, 663 F.2d 253 (D.C. Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 928 (1982). The standard for summary judgment, our review confirms, was securely met. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 2553 (1986).* Substantially for the reasons stated by the district court in its dispositive Memorandum, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED, by this court, that the judgment from which this appeal has been taken by affirmed. It is

FURTHER ORDERED, by this court, on its own motion, that the Clerk withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition of any timely petition for rehearing. See D.C. Cir. R. 15 (August 1, 1987). This instruction to the Clerk is without prejudice to the right of any party at any time to move for expedited issuance of the mandate for good cause shown.

PER CURIAM DECISION

19871117

© 2002 VersusLaw ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.