Dedes v. Page, 72 F.3d 126 (4th Cir. 1995). · Go Syfert
Search
Dedes v. Page, 72 F.3d 126 (4th Cir. 1995). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
37 citation events (9 in the last 25 years) across 8 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Hunnicutt, Sr. v. Tafoya-Lucero (nmd, 2022-03-21)
Treatment trajectory · 1995 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1995 2010 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" Hunnicutt, Sr. v. Tafoya-Lucero
D.N.M. · 2022 · signal: see · confidence high
See Dehoney v. S. Carolina Dep't of Corr., 1995 WL 842006 , at *1 (D.S.C. 1995), aff'd, 72 F.3d 126 (4th Cir. 1995).
discussed Cited "see" Yashenko v. Harrah's NC Casino Company, LLC
W.D.N.C. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See Curry v. E-Systems, Inc., 72 F.3d 126 (table), 1995 WL 729512, at *4 (4th Cir.1995) (holding that the court may consider evidence relating to prima facie case when determining if plaintiff has met burden of proving proffered reason is pretext for discrimination) (quoting St.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Beitel v. OCA, Inc.
5th Cir. · 2008 · signal: see also · confidence low
United States v. Levoy, (In re Levoy), 182 B.R. 827, 834-35 (9th Cir.BAP 1995) (citing Moody v. Bucknum (In re Bucknum), 951 F.2d 204, 207 (9th Cir. 1991)) (emphasis added); see also Ruch v. Cerrone & Assocs., Inc. (In re Cerrone & Assocs.), Inc., 72 F.3d 126 (table), 1995 WL 747586, at *1 (4th Cir.1995) (per curiam) (unpublished) (setting forth the same presumption that may only be overcome by clear and convincing evidence); Mulder v. C.I.R., 855 F.2d 208, 212 (5th Cir.1988) (''[I]t is presumed that a properly-addressed piece of mail placed in the care of the Postal Service has been delivered…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Christos D. Dedes, and Christos D. Dedes, as Legal Custodian for His Children Quincy Sophia Dedes and Dionysios Christos Dedes All Parents Similarly Situated
v.
Roswell Page John O'BriOn Murray J. Janus Sylvia Clute Donald Lemons Alfred Shilling Daniel T. Balfour Melvin R. Hughes, Judge of the Circuit Court in the City of Richmond Richard L. Williams, Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
95-2737.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Dec 20, 1995.
72 F.3d 126
Published

72 F.3d 126
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished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.

Christos D. DEDES, Plaintiff--Appellant,
and
Christos D. DEDES, as Legal Custodian for his Children
Quincy Sophia Dedes and Dionysios Christos Dedes;
ALL PARENTS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs,
v.
Roswell PAGE; John O'Brion; Murray J. Janus; Sylvia
Clute; Donald Lemons; Alfred Shilling; Daniel T. Balfour;
Melvin R. Hughes, Judge of the Circuit Court in the City of
Richmond; Richard L. Williams, Judge of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia,
Defendants--Appellees.

No. 95-2737.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 30, 1995.
Decided Dec. 20, 1995.

Christos D. Dedes, Appellant Pro Se.

James Watson Morris, III, MORRIS & MORRIS, Richmond, Virginia; John O'Brion, COWAN & OWEN, Richmond, Virginia; Murray J. Janus, BREMNER, BABER & JANUS, Richmond, Virginia; Sylvia Clute, SYLVIA CLUTE & ASSOCIATES, Richmond, Virginia; William Mark Dunn, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia; Alfred Shilling; Daniel T. Balfour, BEALE, BALFOUR, DAVIDSON, ETHERINGTON & PARKER, Richmond, Virginia; Robert William Jaspen, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Before HALL and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant appeals from the district court's orders granting Defendants' motions for Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 sanctions and awarding monetary sanctions. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss on the reasoning of the district court. Dedes v. Page, No. CA-94-186 (E.D. Va. July 26, 1994; Aug. 18, 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.

DISMISSED