Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Patricia J. Bills, Leslie N. Bills v. Newbury Industries Corporation, Eagle Signal Industrial Centrols, And/or Eagle Signal Corporation, 90-3916 (1991)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Number: 90-3916 Visitors: 21
Filed: Jun. 05, 1991
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 935 F.2d 269 Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit. Patricia J. BILLS, Leslie N. Bills, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. NEWBURY INDUSTRIES CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee, Eagle Signal Industrial Centrols, and/or Eagle Signal Corporation, Defendant. No. 90-3916. Unit
More

935 F.2d 269

Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit.
Patricia J. BILLS, Leslie N. Bills, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
NEWBURY INDUSTRIES CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee,
Eagle Signal Industrial Centrols, and/or Eagle Signal
Corporation, Defendant.

No. 90-3916.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

June 5, 1991.

Before ALAN E. NORRIS and SUHRHEINRICH, Circuit Judges and ENGEL, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

1

Plaintiffs, Patricia J. Bills and Leslie N. Bills, appeal from the order of the district court granting summary judgment to defendant, Newbury Industries Corporation.

2

Having had the benefit of oral argument, and having carefully considered the record on appeal and the briefs of the parties, we are unable to say that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to defendant.

3

As the reasons why judgment should be entered for defendant have been articulated by the district court, the issuance of a written opinion by this court would be duplicative and serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed upon the reasoning set out by that court in its memorandum opinion dated August 9, 1990.

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