Oliver M. Redmond v. Day & Zimmerman, Inc., 85 F.3d 641 (10th Cir. 1996). · Go Syfert
Search
Oliver M. Redmond v. Day & Zimmerman, Inc., 85 F.3d 641 (10th Cir. 1996). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
38 citation events (8 in the last 25 years) across 7 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Hale-El v. Doe (ca10, 2025-06-25)
Treatment trajectory · 1996 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1996 2011 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hale-El v. Doe
10th Cir. · 2025 · confidence medium
Finally, Hale-El fails to “give us any citations or reasons informing us why the trial court’s order was erroneous[.]” See Stouffer v. Fields, 85 F.3d 641, at *2 (10th Cir. 1996) (unpublished table decision).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Arturo Brazier, A/K/A Arturo Gooding
10th Cir. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Brazier, 85 F.3d 641 (Table), 1996 WL 218605 (10th Cir. May 1, 1996). 4 After his conviction was affirmed, Appellant filed a motion to vacate his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 , contending that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
cited Cited "see" United States v. Brazier
10th Cir. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Brazier, 85 F.3d 641 (Table), 1996 WL 218605 (10th Cir. May 1, 1996).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Carlos
D. Kan. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Carlos, 906 F.Supp. 582 (D.Kan.1995), aff 'd, 85 F.3d 641 (10th Cir.1996) (Table) (available on Westlaw at 1996 WL 148583 ).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Grider
D.D.C. · 2022 · signal: see also · confidence low
Cir. 1982) (elements of aiding-and-abetting generally); see also United States v. Montoya, 85 F.3d 641 , 1996 WL 229188, at *3-4 (10th Cir. 1996) (unpublished) (aiding-and-abetting as to 18 U.S.C. § 1361 specifically).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. McIntosh
10th Cir. · 2022 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., United States v. McGiff, 85 F.3d 641 (10th Cir. 1996) (unpublished); United States v. Coates, 483 F. App’x 488, 495 (10th Cir. 2012) (unpublished); Freisinger v. Keith, 473 F. App’x 846, 848 (10th Cir. 2012) (unpublished).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Wyoming v. United States Department of Agriculture
10th Cir. · 2011 · signal: see also · confidence low
See Bergland, 695 F.2d at 484 (describing MUSYA as “more permissive and aspirational than mandatory”); Perkins, 608 F.2d at 806-07 (stating that the language found in MUSYA “can hardly be considered concrete limits upon agency discretion” because it “breathe[s] discretion at every pore.” (alteration in original) (quoting Strickland, 519 F.2d at 469 ) (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Wind River Multiple-Use Advocates v. Espy, 835 F.Supp. 1362, 1372-73 (D.Wyo.1993), aff ’d, 85 F.3d 641 (10th Cir.1996) (“Courts that have considered this issue have held that the MUSYA …
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Sanders v. United States
N.D. Ohio · 1998 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also, United States v. Self, 876 F.Supp. 244, 248 (D.Colo.1995), aff'd, 85 F.3d 641 (10th Cir.1996) (“Self, for all practical purposes, has no state remedies to exhaust and therefore there is federal jurisdiction over his § 2255 habeas action.”). 20 Sanders raises the argument that, due to ineffective assistance of trial counsel in the form of failure to object to the trial court’s jury instructions relating to self defense, his 1972 conviction for assault with a dangerous weapon was constitutionally invalid and should not have been used for purposes of enhancing his federal sentenc…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Oliver M. Redmond
v.
Day & Zimmerman, Inc.
95-3294.
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Jul 22, 1996.
85 F.3d 641
Published

85 F.3d 641

NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored, unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on a material issue, and a copy is attached to the citing document or, if cited in oral argument, copies are furnished to the Court and all parties. See General Order of November 29, 1993, suspending 10th Cir. Rule 36.3 until December 31, 1995, or further order.

Oliver M. REDMOND, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
DAY & ZIMMERMAN, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 95-3294.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

April 8, 1996.
As Amended July 22, 1996.

Before BRORBY and BARRETT, Circuit Judges, and BRIMMER,[**] District Judge.

BRORBY, Circuit Judge.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT[1]

1

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously to grant the parties' request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(f) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

2

Plaintiff Oliver M. Redmond filed suit against his former employer, claiming his employment was terminated in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C.2000e through 2000e-17, because of his age and race, and in retaliation for a prior discrimination claim against the employer. The employer moved for summary judgment. The district court granted the motion, concluding that Mr. Redmond had failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation, and even if he had, the employer had articulated a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for dismissing Mr. Redmond.

3

We review the grant of summary judgment de novo, using the same standard as the district court under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). Blue Circle Cement, Inc. v. Board of County Comm'rs, 27 F.3d 1499, 1503 (10th Cir.1994). Summary judgment is appropriate only "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). We examine the factual record and the inferences that reasonably can be drawn from the facts in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment. Applied Genetics Int'l, Inc. v. First Affiliated Sec., Inc., 912 F.2d 1238, 1241 (10th Cir.1990).

4

We have carefully reviewed the parties' briefs and the appendix, and we have considered them in light of the applicable law. Mr. Redmond has failed to persuade us that the district court committed any reversible error. The district court issued a thorough, well-reasoned and well-written memorandum and order granting summary judgment to defendant. We can say it no better. Therefore, we affirm the district court's August 25, 1995 summary judgment order for substantially the same reasons stated in that order, a copy being attached ( 897 F.Supp. 1380).

5

The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas is AFFIRMED.

**

Honorable Clarence A. Brimmer, District Judge, United States District Court for the District of Wyoming, sitting by designation

1

This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3