George Paul Laroque v. United States Dep't of State, 870 F.2d 655 (4th Cir. 1989). · Go Syfert
Search
George Paul Laroque v. United States Dep't of State, 870 F.2d 655 (4th Cir. 1989). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
41 citation events (4 in the last 25 years) across 9 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Black v. Cummings (wvsd, 2023-03-28)
Treatment trajectory · 1989 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1989 2007 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Black v. Cummings
S.D.W. Va · 2023 · signal: see also · confidence low
Accordingly, the Count has been dismissed above, and the Court will not address the relevant arguments here. 582 U.S. at 153 (applying the doctrine to a § 1985(3) claim); Buschi v. Kirven, 775 F.2d 1240, 1252-53 (4th Cir. 1985) (discussing evolution of the doctrine and applying it to a § 1985(3) claim); see also Locus v. Fayetteville State Univ., 870 F.2d 655 (Table), 1989 WL 21442, at *2 (4th Cir. 1989) (declining to limit application of the doctrine).
cited Cited "see, e.g." JONES v. ALVAREZ
M.D.N.C. · 2021 · signal: see also · confidence low
See Buschi v. Kirven, 775 F.2d 1240 , 1252–53 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Locus v. Fayetteville State University, 870 F.2d 655 (Table), 1989 WL 21442 (4th Cir. March 8, 1989) (unpublished disposition).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Bailey v. Atlantic Automotive Corp.
D. Maryland · 2014 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See, e.g., Lewin v. Cooke, 28 Fed.Appx. 186, 195 (4th Cir.2002) (state law conspiracy claim); Walters v. McMahen, 795 F.Supp.2d 350, 351, 358-59 (D.Md.2011) (RICO conspiracy claim), aff'd, 684 F.3d 435 (4th Cir.2012); see also Locus v. Fayetteville State Univ., 870 F.2d 655, at *1-2 (4th Cir.1989) (acknowledging application of the doctrine in the civil rights context).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Veney v. Ojeda
E.D. Va. · 2004 · signal: see also · confidence low
See Buschi v. Kirven, 775 F.2d 1240 , 1252-53 (4th Cir.1985); see also Locus v. Fayetteville State University, 870 F.2d 655 (Table), 1989 WL 21442 (4th Cir. March 8, 1989) (unpublished disposition).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
George Paul Laroque
v.
United States Department of State
88-7830.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Mar 21, 1989.
870 F.2d 655
Unpublished

870 F.2d 655
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished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.
George Paul LAROQUE, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 88-7830.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 10, 1989.
Decided Feb. 24, 1989.
Rehearing and Rehearing In Banc Denied March 21, 1989.

George Paul LaRoque, appellant pro se.

Nathan Dodell, Office of the United States Attorney, for appellee.

Before DONALD RUSSELL and SPROUSE, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

George Paul LaRoque appeals from the district court's order denying a petition for writ of mandamus. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.[*] LaRoque v. United States Department of State, C/A No. 88-779-CRT (E.D.N.C. Nov. 23, 1988). 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.

*

We deny LaRoque's motion to reverse, vacate and remand. LaRoque's motion to expedite is granted to the extent that his case has been considered as expeditiously as possible, consistent with the Court's docket