Amato v. City of Richmond, 78 F.3d 578 (4th Cir. 1996). · Go Syfert
Search
Amato v. City of Richmond, 78 F.3d 578 (4th Cir. 1996). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“any question as to the interpretation of this agreement or as to any alleged violation of any provision of this agreement”
43 citation events (20 in the last 25 years) across 9 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Peabody Holding Co. v. United Mine Workers of America (ca4, 2012-01-11)
Treatment trajectory · 1996 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1996 2011 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Peabody Holding Co. v. United Mine Workers of America
4th Cir. · 2012 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
any question as to the interpretation of this agreement or as to any alleged violation of any provision of this agreement
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Malamatis v. ATI Holdings, LLC
D. Maryland · 2022 · confidence medium
DuPont de Nemours & Co. v. Martinsville Nylon Emps.' Council Corp., 78 F.3d 578, at *1 (4th Cir. 1996) (unpublished) (concluding that the clear and unmistakable test was not met where the contract provided for arbitration of “[a]ny question as to the interpretation of this Agreement or as to any alleged violation of any provision of this Agreement”); see also Peabody, 665 F.3d at 102 .
discussed Cited "see" MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Commonwealth of Virginia State Corp. Commission
E.D. Va. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See Fleming v. Worker’s Compensation Comm’n of the Commonwealth of Virginia, 78 F.3d 578 , 1996 WL 93843 at *1 n. 4 (4th Cir. Mar.5, 1996)(unpublished opinion); Van Harken v. City of Chicago, 103 F.3d 1346, 1348-9 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 1846 , 137 L.Ed.2d 1049 (1997); Narey v. Dean, 32 F.3d 1521, 1525 (11th Cir.1994); Ivy Club v. Edwards, 943 F.2d 270, 284 (3d Cir.1991) cert. denied sub nom.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Lamont Drayton v. Sgt. Newman
4th Cir. · 2025 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Allen v. Murray, 78 F.3d 578 , 1996 WL 95915 , at *1 (4th Cir. 1996) (unpublished table decision); McDaniel v. Rhine, 907 F.2d 1138 , 1990 WL 86036, at *1 (4th Cir. 1990) (unpublished table decision); Pressly v. Hutto, 861 F.2d 265 , 1988 WL 105431 , at *1–2 (4th Cir. 1988) (unpublished table decision).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Anthony M. Amato A. Michael Scott, Sr.
v.
City of Richmond W.R. Shuman, Detective, Individually and as a Police Officer for the City of Richmond Robert Hosick, Detective Sgt., Individually and as a Police Officer for the City of Richmond Teresa P. Gooch, Captain, Individually and as a Police Officer for the City of Richmond Laurel Miller, Major, Individually and as a Police Officer for the City of Richmond Philip Mangano, Detective Sgt., Individually and as a Police Officer for the City of Richmond, Marty M. Tapscott, Chief, Individually and as Police Chief for the City of Richmond v. United States of America, Party in Interest
95-1114.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Mar 5, 1996.
78 F.3d 578
Unpublished
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: #4,909 of 633,719
Citer courts: Fourth Circuit (1)

78 F.3d 578

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.
Anthony M. AMATO; A. Michael Scott, Sr., Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
CITY OF RICHMOND; W.R. Shuman, Detective, Individually and
as a police officer for the City of Richmond; Robert
Hosick, Detective Sgt., Individually and as a police officer
for the City of Richmond; Teresa P. Gooch, Captain,
Individually and as a police officer for the City of
Richmond; Laurel Miller, Major, Individually and as a
police officer for the City of Richmond; Philip Mangano,
Detective Sgt., Individually and as a police officer for the
City of Richmond, Marty M. Tapscott, Chief, Individually and
as Police Chief for the City of Richmond, Defendants-Appellees,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Party in Interest.

No. 95-1114.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Argued Jan. 31, 1996.
Decided March 5, 1996.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-94-193)

ARGUED: Ronald J. Bacigal, Youth Advocacy Clinic, T.C. Williams School of Law, UNIVERSITY OF RICHMOND, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellants. Scott Charles Oostdyk, MCGUIRE, WOODS, BATTLE & BOOTHE, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Michael J. Kelly, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellants. Kenneth D. Crowder, MCGUIRE, WOODS, BATTLE & BOOTHE, Richmond, Virginia; William Joe Hoppe, Senior Assistant City Attorney, Richmond, Virginia; Michael HuYoung, Richmond, Virginia; Jane Chittom, SHUFORD, RUBIN & GIBNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

E.D.Va.

AFFIRMED.

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellants, Anthony M. Amato and A. Michael Scott, Sr., appeal from the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants on appellants' complaints alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and of various state laws. We have reviewed the district court's opinion, the record, the briefs, and the contentions advanced by both parties at oral argument and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the district court on the reasoning of that court. Amato v. City of Richmond, 875 F.Supp. 1124 (E.D.Va.1994).

AFFIRMED