Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Griffin v. Dalkon Shield Trust, 99-1097 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 99-1097 Visitors: 31
Filed: Jul. 15, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 01, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1097 In Re: A. H. ROBINS COMPANY, INCORPORATED, Debtor. _ VALERIA GRIFFIN; DEBBIE KING, Claimants - Appellants, versus DALKON SHIELD CLAIMANTS TRUST, Trust - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge; Robert R. Merhige, Jr., Senior District Judge; Blackwell N. Shelley, Bankruptcy Judge. (CA-85-1307-R) Submitted: June 22, 1999
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1097 In Re: A. H. ROBINS COMPANY, INCORPORATED, Debtor. _________________________ VALERIA GRIFFIN; DEBBIE KING, Claimants - Appellants, versus DALKON SHIELD CLAIMANTS TRUST, Trust - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge; Robert R. Merhige, Jr., Senior District Judge; Blackwell N. Shelley, Bankruptcy Judge. (CA-85-1307-R) Submitted: June 22, 1999 Decided: July 15, 1999 Before WIDENER, HAMILTON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James F. Szaller, BROWN & SZALLER, CO., L.P.A., Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellants. Orran L. Brown, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Valeria Griffin and Debbie King appeal the district court’s order denying their motion to vacate the arbitrator’s decision denying their respective Dalkon Shield claims. 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. See In re: A. H. Robins Co. (Griffin v. Dalkon Shield Trust), No. CA-85-1307-R (E.D. Va. Jan. 8, 1999). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate- ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer