John M. Coles v. Washington Free Weekly, Inc., Doing Bus. as Washington City Paper Bill Gifford, 88 F.3d 1278 (D.C. Cir. 1996). · Go Syfert
Search
John M. Coles v. Washington Free Weekly, Inc., Doing Bus. as Washington City Paper Bill Gifford, 88 F.3d 1278 (D.C. Cir. 1996). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
17 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Mar-Jac Poultry, Inc. v. Katz (dcd, 2011-03-30)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" Mar-Jac Poultry, Inc. v. Katz
D.D.C. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
See Coles v. Washington Free Weekly, Inc., 881 F. Supp. 26, 30 (D.D.C. 1995), aff’d, 88 F.3d 1278 (D.C.
cited Cited "see" Mar-Jac Poultry, Inc. v. Katz
D.D.C. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
See Coles v. Washington Free Weekly, Inc., 881 F.Supp. 26, 30 (D.D.C.1995), aff'd, 88 F.3d 1278 (D.C.Cir.1996); McBride v. Merrell Dow & Pharms., Inc., 717 F.2d 1460, 1466 (D.C.Cir.1983).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
John M. Coles
v.
Washington Free Weekly, Inc., Doing Business as Washington City Paper Bill Gifford
95-7105.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Apr 3, 1996.
88 F.3d 1278
Unpublished

88 F.3d 1278

NOTICE: D.C. Circuit Local Rule 11(c) states that unpublished orders, judgments, and explanatory memoranda may not be cited as precedents, but counsel may refer to unpublished dispositions when the binding or preclusive effect of the disposition, rather than its quality as precedent, is relevant.
John M. COLES, Appellant,
v.
WASHINGTON FREE WEEKLY, INC., doing business as Washington
City Paper; Bill Gifford.

No. 95-7105.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

April 3, 1996.

Before: SILBERMAN, ROGERS, and TATEL, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

1

Upon consideration of the motion for summary affirmance, the opposition thereto, and the reply, it is

2

ORDERED that the motion for summary affirmance be granted substantially for the reasons stated by the district court in its memorandum opinion filed March 27, 1995. The merits of the parties' positions are so clear as to warrant 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).

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 41.