Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Novelli v. Paschall, 03-50323 (2004)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 03-50323 Visitors: 28
Filed: Mar. 08, 2004
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS March 8, 2004 FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III _ Clerk No. 03-50323 _ GINGER RICHARDSON NOVELLI, Plaintiff - Counter Defendant - Appellant- Cross-Appellee, WILLIAM L. RICHARDSON, Plaintiff - Cross-Appellee, versus JOSEPH PASCHALL, Etc.; ET AL., Defendants, JOSEPH PASCHALL, doing business as Paschall Skipper & Associates, Individually and d/b/a Paschall Skipper & Associates; PASCHALL SKIPPER
More
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS March 8, 2004 FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III _____________________ Clerk No. 03-50323 _____________________ GINGER RICHARDSON NOVELLI, Plaintiff - Counter Defendant - Appellant- Cross-Appellee, WILLIAM L. RICHARDSON, Plaintiff - Cross-Appellee, versus JOSEPH PASCHALL, Etc.; ET AL., Defendants, JOSEPH PASCHALL, doing business as Paschall Skipper & Associates, Individually and d/b/a Paschall Skipper & Associates; PASCHALL SKIPPER & ASSOCIATES, Defendants - Appellees, PATRICK M. ARNOLD, Defendant- Counter Plaintiff -Appellee - Cross-Appellant, WATSON C. ARNOLD JR., Counter Plaintiff - Appellee - Cross-Appellant. _________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. W-02-CV-47 _________________________________________________________________ Before JOLLY, DUHÉ, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* We have reviewed the record, studied the briefs and heard arguments of counsel. We are now thoroughly convinced that the judgment of the district court, granting summary judgment for the defendants and dismissing the complaint, is free of error. Consequently, its judgment is 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 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