Lamar M. Jolly Harriet T. Jolly v. Great W. Bank, 45 F.3d 426 (4th Cir. 1994). · Go Syfert
Search
Lamar M. Jolly Harriet T. Jolly v. Great W. Bank, 45 F.3d 426 (4th Cir. 1994). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“constructive discharge theory is the only legal theory upon which hooper could show that his request to be transferred was involuntary.”
77 citation events (25 in the last 25 years) across 23 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Brown v. Wolf (dcd, 2023-05-08)
Treatment trajectory · 1994 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1994 2010 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Brown v. Wolf
D.D.C. · 2023 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
constructive discharge theory is the only legal theory upon which hooper could show that his request to be transferred was involuntary.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Joseph David Rice
Bankr. W.D.N.C. · 2025 · confidence medium
Bank, 45 F.3d 426 , 1994 WL 717626, at *1 (1994) (unpublished table decision))); see also Covino, 245 B.R. at 168 (“In some extreme circumstances, where bad faith is found, more than ‘mere’ dismissal is appropriate.”).
discussed Cited "see" Bauer v. Holder
E.D. Va. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hooper v. State of Md., Dep’t of Human Res., 45 F.3d 426, *3 (4th Cir.1995) (citing Stone for the proposition that in a Title VII claim "[i]f the employment action was voluntarily taken by the employee, the action can not [sic] be said to have been motivated by racial discrimination on the part of the defendant employer”); Shealy v. Winston, 929 F.2d 1009, 1010 (4th Cir.1991) (applying the Stone factors to a constructive discharge analysis in an Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 et seq., case). .
cited Cited "see" Deblasio v. Johnson
E.D. Va. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See James v. Robinson, 863 F.Supp. 275, 278 (E.D.Va.1994), aff'd, 45 F.3d 426 (4th Cir.1994) (unpublished); Alley v. Angelone, 962 F.Supp. 827, 834 (E.D.Va.1997).
cited Cited "see" Vincent v. Warden of Dillwyn Correctional Center
Va. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See James v. Robinson, 863 F.Supp. 275, 276 (E.D.Va. 1994), aff’d 45 F.3d 426 (4th Cir. 1994), citing Greenholtz v. Inmates of the Nebraska Penal & Correctional Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 7 (1979).
discussed Cited "see" Johnson v. Rodriguez
5th Cir. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See James v. Robinson, 863 F.Supp. 275 (E.D.Va.1994), aff'd, 45 F.3d 426 (4th Cir.1994) Additionally, although not relied upon by Johnson, the Fourth Circuit in Paine v. Baker, 595 F.2d 197 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 925 , 100 S.Ct. 263 , 62 L.Ed.2d 181 (1979), developed a tripartite test to determine when "false information" should be expunged from prison records.
cited Cited "see" Nelson v. Strawn
D.S.C. · 1995 · signal: see · confidence high
See McMahon v.F & M Bank-Winchester, 45 F.3d 426 (4th Cir.1994).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." In Re Van Eck (2×)
Bankr. D. Conn. · 2010 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Jolly v. Great Western Bank (In re Jolly), 143 B.R. 383, 387 (E.D.Va.1992), aff'd, 45 F.3d 426 , 1994 WL 717626 (4th Cir.1994) (“Thus, this court finds that, so long as the dismissing court finds cause, a bankruptcy action may be dismissed with prejudice for 180 days, or more, without violating the terms of § 349(a), or for that matter, § 109(g).” (cited with approval in Casse)).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Leavitt v. Soto (In Re Leavitt) (2×)
9th Cir. BAP · 1997 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also In re Jolly, 143 B.R. 383, 388 (E.D.Va.1992) (“[S]o long as the dismissing court finds cause, a bankruptcy action may be dismissed with prejudice for 180 days, or more, without violating the terms of § 349(a) or, for that matter, § 109(g).”), aff'd, 45 F.3d 426 , 1994 WL 717626 (4th Cir.1994); In re Spear, 203 B.R. 349, 354 (Bankr.D.Mass.1996); In re Greenberg, 200 B.R. 763, 768 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1996); In re Belden, 144 B.R. 1010, 1022 (Bankr.D.Minn.1992); In re Earl, 140 B.R. 728, 740-41 (Bankr.N.D.Ind.1992); In re Dilley, 125 B.R. 189, 197 (Bankr.N.D.Ohio 1991); In re Hundley, 1…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Colonial Auto Center, Inc. v. Tomlin (2×)
W.D. Va. · 1995 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., In re Jolly, 143 B.R. 383, 388 (E.D.Va.1992), aff'd, 45 F.3d 426 , 1994 WL 717626 (4th Cir.1994) (finding that, so long as the dismissing court finds cause, a bankruptcy action may be dismissed with prejudice for 180 days, or more, without violating the terms of § 349(a) or § 109(g)). .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Lamar M. Jolly Harriet T. Jolly
v.
Great Western Bank
92-2138.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Dec 29, 1994.
45 F.3d 426
Cited by 7 opinions  |  Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 80%
Citer courts: District of Columbia (1)

45 F.3d 426
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.

Lamar M. JOLLY; Harriet T. Jolly, Plaintiffs Appellants,
v.
GREAT WESTERN BANK, Defendant Appellee.

No. 92-2138.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 15, 1993.
Decided: Dec. 29, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CA-92-53, BK-91-42581-B)

Lamar M. Jolly, Harriet T. Jolly, Appellants Pro Se. Robyn Hylton Hansen, JONES, BLECHMAN, WOLTZ & KELLY, P.C., Newport News, VA, for Appellee.

E.D.Va.

AFFIRMED.

Before WIDENER, MURNAGHAN, and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellants appeal from the district court's order affirming the bankruptcy court's order dismissing their petition filed under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, with prejudice to their right to refile for a period of 180 days. 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. Jolly v. Great Western Bank, No. CA-92-53 (E.D. Va. Aug. 7, 1992). 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.

2

AFFIRMED.