Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

88-5395 (1988)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Number: 88-5395 Visitors: 34
Filed: Aug. 05, 1988
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 853 F.2d 927 Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit. Harry D. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellee, John R. Hall; Robert T. McCowan; Richard W. Spears; Ashland Oil, Inc.; Charles J. Queenan, Jr. Defendants-Appellees, and Bill E. McKay, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ASHLAN
More

853 F.2d 927

Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit.
Harry D. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellee,
John R. Hall; Robert T. McCowan; Richard W. Spears;
Ashland Oil, Inc.; Charles J. Queenan, Jr.
Defendants-Appellees,
and
Bill E. McKay, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ASHLAND OIL, INC.; Ashland Petroleum Co.; Ashland
Development, Inc.; Orin E. Atkins; John R. Hall;
Defendants-Appellees,
The Lexington Herald-Leader; Intervenor-Appellant,
The Courier-Journal, Intervenor.

No. 88-5395.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Aug. 5, 1988.

Before LIVELY, MERRITT and KRUPANSKY, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

1

Intervening party-appellant appeals the order of the district court sealing the jury verdicts rendered by a summary jury and prohibiting the jurors from contact with anyone other than counsel for the parties to the action. Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss this action as moot.

2

The intervenors claimed a First Amendment right to interview jurors and to disclosure of the summary jury verdicts rendered in this case and moved to acquire access to both. The district court judge denied that motion and ordered the verdicts sealed pending the return of the actual jury verdict to prevent potential bias of the jury in the actual trial. Defendants have now filed a motion to dismiss the action as moot.

3

The actual trial of this action resulted in a jury verdict rendered on June 10, 1988. District court unsealed the three advisory verdicts of the summary jury on June 13, 1988. These actions of the district court render the motion of the intervening party-appellant moot. Accordingly,

4

It is ORDERED that the motion to dismiss be and hereby is granted.

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