Charles Davis Burrell v. Mark R. Davis, Assistant Attorney Gen. Robert L. Harris, Judge, 962 F.2d 6 (4th Cir. 1992). · Go Syfert
Search
Charles Davis Burrell v. Mark R. Davis, Assistant Attorney Gen. Robert L. Harris, Judge, 962 F.2d 6 (4th Cir. 1992). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
38 citation events across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: In re Blankenship (vawb, 2000-08-10) · Strongest negative: In Re Sherman (vaeb, 1995-07-10)
Treatment trajectory · 1992 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1992 2009 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "but see" In Re Sherman
Bankr. E.D. Va. · 1995 · signal: but see · confidence high
But see, In re Emerson, 129 B.R. 82 (Bankr.W.D.Va.1991), aff'd 962 F.2d 6 (4th Cir.1992) (homestead deed cannot be amended to decrease value of listed property in order to add other property not previously listed, where the property was owned by the debtor at the time the original deed was filed).
cited Cited "see" In re Blankenship
Bankr. W.D. Va. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See In Re Emerson, 129 B.R. 82 (Bankr.W.D.Va.1991), aff 'd mem. 962 F.2d 6 , 1992 WL 95139 (4th Cir.1992) 7 .
cited Cited "see" In Re MacKta
Bankr. E.D. Va. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See In re Emerson, 129 B.R. 82, 84 (Bankr.W.D.Va.1991), aff'd, 962 F.2d 6 (4th Cir.1992).
discussed Cited "see" In Re Zella
Bankr. E.D. Va. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See, In re Emerson, 129 B.R. 82 (Bankr.W.D.Va.1991), aff 'd 962 F.2d 6 (4th Cir.1992) (homestead deed cannot be amended to decrease value of listed property to add other property not previously listed, where the property was owned by the debtor at the time the original homestead deed was filed).
discussed Cited "see" In Re Heater (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Bankr. E.D. Va. · 1995 · signal: see · confidence high
See In re Emerson, 129 B.R. 82 (Bankr.W.D.Va.1991), aff'd., 962 F.2d 6 (4th Cir.1992) (holding that a recorded homestead deed which lists property equal in value to the entire available homestead exemption may not be amended to decrease the value of the property listed thereon in order to add property not previously listed — at least not with respect to property owned by the debtor when the original homestead deed was filed).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." In Re Fromal
E.D. Va. · 1993 · signal: see also · confidence low
Under Va.Code § 34-3.1, “Virginia prohibits bankrupt individuals from choosing the federal exemptions set forth in section 522(d),” Cheeseman, 656 F.2d at 62 , and “allows Virginia residents to use only the exemptions created under state law.” In re Shearer, 132 B.R. at 315 ; see also In re Emerson, 129 B.R. 82, 84 (Bankr.W.D.Va.1991), aff'd, 962 F.2d 6 (4th Cir.1992) (table).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Charles Davis Burrell
v.
Mark R. Davis, Assistant Attorney General Robert L. Harris, Judge
92-1120.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
May 19, 1992.
962 F.2d 6
Unpublished

962 F.2d 6

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.
Charles Davis BURRELL, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Mark R. DAVIS, Assistant Attorney General; Robert L.
Harris, Judge, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 92-1120.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 4, 1992
Decided: May 19, 1992

Charles Davis Burrell, Appellant Pro Se.

George Walerian Chabalewski, Office of The Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Before HALL, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Charles Davis Burrell appeals from the district court's order denying relief under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985 (1988). Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Burrell v. Davis, No. CA-91-479-3 (E.D. Va. Dec. 18, 1991). 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