Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

McNell v. Hugel, 95-1470 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Number: 95-1470 Visitors: 1
Filed: Feb. 22, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Defendants, Appellees., William L. Chapman, Cordell A. Johnston, Orr and Reno, Katie A., ___________________ ___________________ _____________ ________, Gummer and McCarter English on brief for appellee Asbury Park Press.the record on appeal.the court in Hugel v. McNell litigation is denied.
USCA1 Opinion









February 22, 1996
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT



____________________


No. 95-1470

THOMAS R. MCNELL,
Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

MAX HUGEL, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees.
____________________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

[Hon. Joseph A. DiClerico, U.S. District Judge] ___________________
____________________

Before

Torruella, Chief Judge, ___________
Cyr and Boudin, Circuit Judges. ______________
____________________

Thomas R. McNell on brief pro se. ________________
Gary M. Burt and Wiggin & Nourie on brief for appellees Max _____________ ________________
Hugel, Devine, Millimet, Stahl & Branch, Joseph Millimet, Esquire, and
Matthias J. Reynolds, Esquire.
William L. Chapman, Cordell A. Johnston, Orr and Reno, Katie A. ___________________ ___________________ _____________ ________
Gummer and McCarter & English on brief for appellee Asbury Park Press. ______ __________________
Wilbur A. Glahn, III, McLane, Graf, Raulerson & Middleton, Andrew _____________________ ___________________________________ ______
L. Sandler, Katharine R. Stollman and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & ___________ _____________________ _______________________________
Flom on brief for appellee Paul L. Perito, Esquire. ____


____________________


____________________

Per Curiam. We have reviewed the parties' briefs and ___________

the record on appeal. We affirm the district court's














judgment of dismissal, essentially for the reasons stated in

its orders of May 16, 1994, July 19, 1994, and March 31,

1995.

Affirmed. _________

Appellant's motion for leave to file a supplemental

appendix is granted. ________

Appellant's "Rule 60(B)(4)(5) & (6) motion for summary

judgment in vacating default judgment obtained in a fraud on

the court in Hugel v. McNell litigation" is denied. _____ ______ _______

The motions filed by appellee Asbury Park Press to

strike appellant's (1) objection to its motion for summary

dismissal and (2) reply brief are denied as moot. _______________





























-3-






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