Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

89-4131 (1991)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Number: 89-4131 Visitors: 44
Filed: Apr. 03, 1991
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 930 F.2d 32 Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: Tenth Circuit Rule 36.3 states that unpublished opinions and orders and judgments have no precedential value and shall not be cited except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Calvin BLACK, Carolyn Black, Danny Black, Shane Shumway, and Merri Shumway, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Brent D. WARD, U.S. Attorney, Ben Tafoya, Tim Clark, Daniel Hughes, Craig M. Endicott, and United States of Am
More

930 F.2d 32

Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Tenth Circuit Rule 36.3 states that unpublished opinions and orders and judgments have no precedential value and shall not be cited except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
Calvin BLACK, Carolyn Black, Danny Black, Shane Shumway, and
Merri Shumway, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
Brent D. WARD, U.S. Attorney, Ben Tafoya, Tim Clark, Daniel
Hughes, Craig M. Endicott, and United States of
America, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 89-4131.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

April 3, 1991.

Before TACHA, SETH and EBEL, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

TACHA, Circuit Judge.

1

Counsel for Appellants conceded at oral argument that the defamation claim against Appellee Brent Ward did not survive the death of Appellant Calvin Black. We therefore AFFIRM the district court's order granting Appellees' motion for summary judgment on this claim. We also AFFIRM the district court's dismissal of the false imprisonment claim against Appellees Ben Tafoya, Tim Clark, Daniel Hughes, and Craig Endicott for substantially the reasons given by the district court.

*

This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir.R. 36.3

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