Filed: Aug. 04, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit _ No. 00-40310 Summary Calendar _ JOHN DILLINGHAM, III; RICHARD M VICK, Individually and doing business as Bulldog Co, a partnership, d/b/a Bulldog Company, Plaintiffs-Appellants, VERSUS MOTOR TRUCK EQUIPMENT CO, Defendant-Appellee. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (6:99-CV-358) _ August 4, 2000 Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* We affirm the judgment of the dist
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit _ No. 00-40310 Summary Calendar _ JOHN DILLINGHAM, III; RICHARD M VICK, Individually and doing business as Bulldog Co, a partnership, d/b/a Bulldog Company, Plaintiffs-Appellants, VERSUS MOTOR TRUCK EQUIPMENT CO, Defendant-Appellee. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (6:99-CV-358) _ August 4, 2000 Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* We affirm the judgment of the distr..
More
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit ___________________________ No. 00-40310 Summary Calendar ___________________________ JOHN DILLINGHAM, III; RICHARD M VICK, Individually and doing business as Bulldog Co, a partnership, d/b/a Bulldog Company, Plaintiffs-Appellants, VERSUS MOTOR TRUCK EQUIPMENT CO, Defendant-Appellee. ___________________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (6:99-CV-358) ___________________________________________________ August 4, 2000 Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* We affirm the judgment of the district court for essentially those reasons enumerated in the court’s March 9, 2000 Memorandum Opinion and Order on Dismissal. Appellants have failed to show that the district court erred in concluding that it lacked personal jurisdiction over Defendant-Appellee. AFFIRMED. * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. -1-
