William A. Fisher v. David Williams Attorney Gen. of the State of Virginia, 817 F.2d 102 (4th Cir. 1987). · Go Syfert
Search
William A. Fisher v. David Williams Attorney Gen. of the State of Virginia, 817 F.2d 102 (4th Cir. 1987). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
32 citation events across 6 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FIGGIE INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant-Appellant (ca9, 1993-05-07)
Treatment trajectory · 1987 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1987 2006 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FIGGIE INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant-Appellant
9th Cir. · 1993 · confidence medium
The Commission made findings independently, and adopted the administrative law judge’s decision as its findings and conclusions except where inconsistent with its opinion, In re Figgie International, Inc., 107 FTC 313, 399 (1986).
cited Cited "see" Telco Communications, Inc. v. Carbaugh
E.D. Va. · 1988 · signal: see · confidence high
See Riley v. National Federal Federation of the Blind of N.C., 817 F.2d 102 (4th Cir.1987) (per curiam).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
William A. Fisher
v.
David Williams Attorney General of the State of Virginia
86-7419.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Apr 21, 1987.
817 F.2d 102
Unpublished

817 F.2d 102
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
William A. FISHER, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
David WILLIAMS; Attorney General of the State of Virginia,
Respondents-Appellees.

No. 86-7419.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted March 3, 1987.
Decided April 21, 1987.

Before RUSSELL, PHILLIPS and SPROUSE, Circuit Judges.

William A. Fisher, appellant pro se.

Linwood Theodore Wells, Jr., Office of the Attyorney General, for appellees.

PER CURIAM:

1

A review of the record and the magistrate's opinion discloses that an appeal from his order refusing habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 would be without merit. Because the dispositive issues recently have been decided authoritatively, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal, dispense with oral argument, and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the magistrate. Fisher v. Williams, C/A No. 86-349-R (E.D.Va., Dec. 19, 1986).

2

DISMISSED.