Bryant v. Lanham, 952 F.2d 395 (4th Cir. 1991). · Go Syfert
Search
Bryant v. Lanham, 952 F.2d 395 (4th Cir. 1991). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
47 citation events (17 in the last 25 years) across 10 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: International Painters and Allied Trades Industry Pension Fund, et al. v. Union Group, Ltd., et al. (mdd, 2025-10-21)
Treatment trajectory · 1991 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1991 2008 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) International Painters and Allied Trades Industry Pension Fund, et al. v. Union Group, Ltd., et al.
D. Maryland · 2025 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Richardson v. Kruchko & Fries, 966 F.2d 153 , 155–56 (4th Cir. 1992) (discussing Garmon as a doctrine preempting claims under state law); Union No. 171 v. Blue Ridge Transfer Co., Inc., 952 F.2d 395, at *2 (4th Cir. Dec. 19, 1991) (unpublished) (“However, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that federal jurisdiction over suits for breach of collective bargaining agreements under Section 301 is not preempted by Garmon.”); Windfield v. Groen Div., Dover Corp., 890 F.2d 764 , 766–67 (5th Cir. 1989) (describing Garmon as speaking “on the issue of preemption of state law clai…
discussed Cited "see" White v. Ames
S.D.W. Va · 2024 · signal: see · confidence high
See George v. Reese, 952 F.2d 395 (4th Cir. 1992) (unpublished table decision) (reconstruing a habeas corpus petition under § 2254 as a complaint under the Freedom of Information Act and stating the pro se petitioner’s “action should not be dismissed simply because he mislabeled the nature of the proceedings in his complaint”); United States v. Williams, 17 F.3d 1435 (4th Cir. 1994) (unpublished table decision) (recasting a “motion labelled as one pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60” as a § 2255 motion); Ballentine v. Warden of Greensville Correctional Center, 155 F.3d 557 (4th Cir. 1998) …
discussed Cited "see" Norfolk Southern Railway Company v. Zayo Group LLC
E.D. Va. · 2022 · signal: see · confidence high
See Elox Corp., 952 F.2d at 6-7 (Contract language that submitted a dispute to a national accounting firm represented a clear intent to arbitrate disputes over the calculation of the value of an asset purchase).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Thomerson v. Covercraft Industries, LLC (2×)
D.S.C. · 2024 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Elox Corp. v. Colt Indus., Inc., 952 F.2d 395 (4th Cir. 1991) (per curiam) (“The district court must [] apply a forum selection clause contained in the agreement if such a clause exists . . . [and] if a court orders arbitration, the arbitration must be held in the same district as the court.”); Am.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." CELLULAR SALES OF KNOXVILLE, INC. v. CHAPMAN
M.D.N.C. · 2020 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Elox Corp. v. Colt Indus., Inc., 952 F.2d 395 (4th Cir. 1991) (unpublished) (“[I]f a court orders arbitration, the arbitration must be held in the same district as the court.”);1 U.S. ex rel.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Kiawah Island Utility Inc v. Swiss Re International S.E.
S.D.N.Y. · 2019 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Elox Corp. v. Colt Indus., Inc., 952 F.2d 395 (4th Cir. 1991) (unpublished) (“The district court must [ ] apply a forum selection clause contained in the agreement if such a clause exists . . . [and] if a court orders arbitration, the arbitration must be held in the same district as the court”); Developers Sur. & Indem.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Whirlpool Corp. v. Philips Electronics, N.V.
S.D.N.Y. · 1994 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Elox Corp. v. Colt Indus., Inc., 952 F.2d 395 (4th Cir.1991) (unpublished per curiam) (requiring accounting arbitration over issue relating to closing adjustment as the “contract itself does not limit the scope of arbitration” in its accounting arbitration provision); Singer Co. v. Tappan Co., 593 F.2d 545, 549 (3d Cir.1979) (finding that accounting arbitration was “the exclusive forum for the resolution of these complex accounting disputes.”); Gestetner Holdings, PLC v. Nashua Corp., 784 F.Supp. 78, 82 (S.D.N.Y.1992) (finding accounting arbitration clause “in no way limit…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
William Bryant
v.
Richard A. Lanham, Commissioner Steve Shiloh, General Manager State Use Industries John Himmel, Classification Supervisor William Smith, Acting Warden
91-7196.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Dec 27, 1991.
952 F.2d 395
Unpublished

952 F.2d 395

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 BRYANT, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Richard A. LANHAM, Commissioner; STEVE SHILOH, General
Manager State Use Industries; John Himmel,
Classification Supervisor; William
Smith, Acting Warden,
Defendants-Appellees.

No. 91-7196.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 5, 1991.
Decided Dec. 27, 1991.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. (CA-91-1750-H), Alexander Harvey, II, Senior District Judge.

William Bryant, appellant pro se.

D.Md.

AFFIRMED.

Before DONALD RUSSELL, MURNAGHAN and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

1

William Bryant appeals from the district court's order denying relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988). 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. Bryant v. Lanham, CA-91-1750-H (D.Md. July 17, 1991). 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.

*

Bryant appears to allege that he has a protected liberty interest in holding a job with State Use Industries. However, the applicable Maryland statutes do not create a protected liberty interest in prison employment with State Use Industries. See Md.Code Ann. art. 27, §§ 680-681M (Michie 1987 & Supp.1991); Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460 (1983)