Legal Opinion
Frances Rogala v. District of Columbia and Ephriam Williams, Officer, Badge 4357
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Decided March 3, 1999No. 98-7014PublishedCited by 146 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
Upon consideration of the motion for summary affirmance, the opposition thereto, and the reply, it is
ORDERED that the motion be granted. The merits of the parties’ positions are so clear as to warrant summary action. See Taxpayers Watchdog, Inc. v. Stanley, 819 F.2d 294, 297 (D.C.Cir.1987) (per cu-riam); Walker v. Washington, 627 F.2d 541, 545 (D.C.Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 994, 101 S.Ct. 532, 66 L.Ed.2d 292 (1980). We affirm the judgment for appel-lees on appellant Rogala’s claims substantially for the reasons well-stated in the district court’s “Opinion, Findings of…
2Cases cited48 opinions
- Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs.Supreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Terry v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Graham v. ConnorSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- City of Canton v. HarrisSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Whren v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
43 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by146 opinions
- United States v. Dennis Dayton HoltCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2001
- Daskalea v. District of ColumbiaCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2000
- United States v. MaherCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2006
- Armstrong v. DailyCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2015
- Vondrak v. City of Las CrucesCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2008
141 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.