Paul A. Clarke v. Marvin Runyon, Postmaster Gen., United States Postal Serv., 68 F.3d 459 (4th Cir. 1995). · Go Syfert
Search
Paul A. Clarke v. Marvin Runyon, Postmaster Gen., United States Postal Serv., 68 F.3d 459 (4th Cir. 1995). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
32 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 6 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Cooke v. United States Bureau of Prisons (nced, 2013-02-27)
Treatment trajectory · 1995 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1995 2010 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cooke v. United States Bureau of Prisons
E.D.N.C. · 2013 · confidence medium
See Kratville v. Runyon, 90 F.3d 195 , 198—99 (7th Cir.1996); Clarke v. Runyon, No. 95-2347, 1995 WL 619943, at *1 (4th Cir. Oct. 23, 1995) (per curiam) (unpublished); Spence v. Straw, 54 F.3d 196, 198-202 (3d Cir.1995); Vinieratos v. United States, 939 F.2d 762 , 773 (9th Cir.1991); Doe v. Garrett, 903 F.2d 1455 , 1459-62 (11th Cir.1990); Morgan v. U.S. Postal Serv., 798 F.2d 1162, 1164-65 (8th Cir.1986) (per curiam); Smith v. U.S. Postal Serv., 742 F.2d 257, 258-62 (6th Cir.1984); Prewitt v. U.S. Postal Serv., 662 F.2d 292, 301-04 (5th Cir. Unit A Nov.1981). 3.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Bailey v. Davant (In Re Bailey)
Bankr. N.D.W. Va. · 2010 · signal: see also · confidence low
A “willful” violation of the automatic stay occurs when “ ‘the creditor acts deliberately with knowledge of the bank *698 ruptcy petition.’ ” Robb v. Nat’l Tree Co. (In re Robb), 399 B.R. 171, 175 (Bankr.N.D.W.Va.2008) (citation omitted); see also Cooper v. Shaw’s Express (In re Bulldog Trucking), 68 F.3d 459 , 1995 WL 613043 *4 (4th Cir.1995) (“ ‘A ‘willful violation’ does not require a specific intent to violate the automatic stay.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Robb v. National Tree Co. (In Re Robb)
Bankr. N.D.W. Va. · 2008 · signal: see also · confidence low
A “willful” violation of the automatic stay occurs when “the creditor acts deliberately with knowledge of the bankruptcy petition.” Knaus v. Concordia Lumber Co. (In re Knaus), 889 F.2d 773, 775 (8th Cir.1989); see also Cooper v. Shaw’s Express (In re Bulldog Trucking), 68 F.3d 459 , 1995 WL 613043 , *3 (4th Cir.1995) (‘“A ‘willful violation’ does not require a specific intent to violate the automatic stay.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Shadduck v. Rodolakis
D. Mass. · 1998 · signal: see also · confidence low
D.D.C.1988]); see also In re Bulldog Trucking, Inc., 68 F.3d 459 , 1995 WL 613043 *3 (4th Cir. Oct. 19, 1995); In re Atlantic Business & Community Corp., 901 F.2d 325 , 329 (3rd Cir.1990); Crysen/Montenay Energy Co. v. Esselen Assoc., Inc. (In re Crysen/Montenay Energy Co.), 902 F.2d 1098, 1105 (2nd Cir.1990) (“[A]ny deliberate act taken in violation of a stay, which the violator knows to be in existence, justifies an award of actual damages.”); Cash America Pawn, L.P. v. Murph, 209 B.R. 419, 424 (E.D.Tex.1997); Taborski v. United States Internal Revenue Service, 141 B.R. 959, 966 (N.D.Ill…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Paul A. Clarke
v.
Marvin Runyon, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service
95-2347.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Oct 23, 1995.
68 F.3d 459
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Unpublished

68 F.3d 459

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) 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.
Paul A. CLARKE, Plaintiff--Appellant,
v.
Marvin RUNYON, Postmaster General, United States Postal
Service, Defendant--Appellee.

No. 95-2347.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Oct. 23, 1995.

Paul A. Clarke, Appellant Pro Se.

Charles Joseph Peters, Sr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant appeals from the district court's order dismissing this action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Clarke v. Runyon, No. CA-94-3449-HAR (D.Md. May 24, 1995). 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. The motion for appointment of counsel is denied.

AFFIRMED