Court Opinion

ID: 2964742
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:30:24.936074+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:44.687750
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 97-1009

                                 SMITH-BARNEY, INC.,

                                 Plaintiff, Appellee,

                                          v.

                                    URSULA EKINCI,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.
                                      __________

                              STANLEY A. TEITLER, P.C.,

                                Defendant, Appellant.
                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

                     [Hon. D. Brock Hornby, U.S. District Judge]
                                            ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                 Selya, Circuit Judge,
                                        _____________
                            Bownes, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                    ____________________
                              and Boudin, Circuit Judge.
                                          _____________

                                 ____________________

            Stanley A.  Teitler, Stanley A.  Teitler, P.C. and Scott Goldstein
            ___________________  _________________________     _______________
        on brief for appellant Stanley A. Teitler, P.C.
            Andrew  M. Horton and Verrill  & Dana on brief  for appellee Smith
            _________________     _______________
        Barney, Inc.
            Douglas F. Jennings on brief for appellee Ursula Ekinci.
            ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                    JUNE 18, 1997
                                 ____________________

                 Per Curiam.  Upon  careful consideration of the parties'
                 __________

            briefs  and the record, we find appellant's contentions to be

            without  merit.     The  district   court's  order  correctly

            explained the validity and  priority of the competing claims.

            Smith Barney, Inc. v. Ekinci, 937 F. Supp. 59 (D. Me. 1996).
            __________________    ______

                 Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.
                 ________   ___

                                         -2-