Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Elkay Mining Company v. ATEL Financial Corp, 02-1747 (2003)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-1747 Visitors: 7
Filed: Jun. 18, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1747 ELKAY MINING COMPANY, a West Virginia Corporation, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ATEL FINANCIAL CORPORATION, a foreign corporation; ATEL CASH DISTRIBUTION FUND V, L.P., a limited partnership, Defendants - Appellants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge. (CA-99-1144-2) Submitted: June 3, 2003 Decided: June 18, 2003
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1747 ELKAY MINING COMPANY, a West Virginia Corporation, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ATEL FINANCIAL CORPORATION, a foreign corporation; ATEL CASH DISTRIBUTION FUND V, L.P., a limited partnership, Defendants - Appellants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge. (CA-99-1144-2) Submitted: June 3, 2003 Decided: June 18, 2003 Before WILKINS, Chief Judge, and LUTTIG and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Marvin Wiseblood, BERG & PARKER L.L.P., San Francisco, California, for Appellants. Richard J. Bolen, HUDDLESTON, BOLEN, BEATTY, PORTER & COPEN, L.L.P., Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant ATEL Financial Corporation (“ATEL”) appeals the district court’s resolution of cross-motions for summary judgment in favor of Appellee Elkay Mining Company (“Elkay”) on Elkay’s declaratory judgment claim that it did not owe any “termination value” to ATEL on an expired lease for mining equipment. We have reviewed the record below, the opinion of the district court, and the briefs of the parties. Because we conclude that the district court properly resolved the legal questions presented on summary judgment, we affirm the judgment of that court on the reasoning of its well-written opinion. 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