Said M. Karara v. Cnty. of Tazewell, Virginia, 601 F.2d 159 (4th Cir. 1979). · Go Syfert
Search
Said M. Karara v. Cnty. of Tazewell, Virginia, 601 F.2d 159 (4th Cir. 1979). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
5 citation events across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Mansoor v. County of Albemarle (vawd, 2000-12-20)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Mansoor v. County of Albemarle
W.D. Va. · 2000 · signal: see also · confidence low
Failure to allege compliance with these statutes is fatal to an action against a county.” New Kent County v. Worley Aviation, Inc., 255 Va. 186 , 496 S.E.2d 70, 74 (1998) (quoting Burk v. Porter, 222 Va. 795 , 284 S.E.2d 602, 603 (1981)); see also Karara v. County of Tazewell, 450 F.Supp. 169 , 172 n. 2 (W.D.Va.1978) (dismissing complaint for failure to follow these sections), aff 'd, 601 F.2d 159 (4th Cir.1979) (per curiam); Chesterfield County v. Town & Country Apartments & Townhouses, 214 Va. 587 , 203 S.E.2d 117, 120 (1974) (same, for failure to allege compliance), unless the County gove…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Doe v. Connors
W.D. Va. · 1992 · signal: see also · confidence low
“Provided the defendant has received the process and the action is not one for divorce or annulment, how the process comes to the defendant’s attention is no longer of any consequence in Virginia.” Pennington, 576 F.Supp. at 872 ; see also Karara v. County of Tazewell, Virginia, 450 F.Supp. 169 , 170 n. 1 (W.D.Va.1978), aff'd, 601 F.2d 159 (4th Cir.1979).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Said M. KARARA, Appellant,
v.
COUNTY OF TAZEWELL, VIRGINIA, Appellee
78-1476.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Jul 12, 1979.
601 F.2d 159
James P. Jones, Abingdon, Va. (Penn, Stuart, Eskridge & Jones, Abingdon, Va., on brief), for appellant., Norris Kantor, Bluefield, W. Va. (Katz, Kantor, Katz, Perkins & Cameron, Blue-field, W. Va., Robert M. Galumbeck, Taze-well, Va., County Atty., on brief), for appellee.
Russell, Field, Widener.
Cited by 5 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

Appellant instituted this diversity action alleging breach of contract by the County of Tazewell. The district court found that appellant had failed to comply with a state statute which required him to appeal the County’s denial of his claim within thirty days of receiving notice of that denial, that such failure would constitute a bar to his action in state court, and thus was a bar to his federal diversity action. We find no error in such ruling and affirm the dismissal of the appellant’s action on the opinion of the district court.

AFFIRMED.