Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Zeus Enterprises Inc v. Alphin Aircraft Inc, 00-1748 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-1748 Visitors: 15
Filed: Apr. 30, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1748 ZEUS ENTERPRISES, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ALPHIN AIRCRAFT, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellant, and THURMAN S. ALPHIN, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-97-294) Submitted: March 27, 2001 Decided: April 30, 2001 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpu
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1748 ZEUS ENTERPRISES, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ALPHIN AIRCRAFT, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellant, and THURMAN S. ALPHIN, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-97-294) Submitted: March 27, 2001 Decided: April 30, 2001 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William H. Bode, Jacquelyn Gluck, BODE & BECKMAN, L.L.P., Washing- ton, D.C., for Appellant. Robert E. Greenberg, Thomas F. Murphy, FRIEDLANDER, MISLER, SLOAN, KLETZKIN & OCHSMAN, P.L.L.C., Washing- ton, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Alphin Aircraft, Inc., appeals from the district court’s order denying its motion for a new trial pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Our review of the record included on appeal and the par- ties’ briefs discloses no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Zeus Enters., Inc. v. Alphin Aircraft, Inc., No. CA-97-294 (E.D. Va. May 12, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 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