Court Opinion

ID: 8967771
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-27 10:17:49.271588+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:10:22.232091
License: Public Domain

ARCHER, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I would decline to consider the issue raised by the certified questions at this time and remand for reconsideration of the facts as they presently exist, applying a balancing test for disqualification instead of a per se disqualification rule.
In the Ohio case, the district court for the Northern District of Ohio found that “Varían had been represented in a number of matters by the Chicago law firm of McDougall, Hersh & Scott (“MH & S”) *585including five that are on-going____ In particular, MH & S ... had been representing Varían in a suit in California against the Genus Corporation.” Picker Int’l, Inc. v. Varian Assocs., Inc., 670 F.Supp. 1363, 1364 (N.D. Ohio 1987). In the Utah case, the district court adopted a magistrate’s finding that MH & S was representing Varían in four pending matters, including the Genus case in California. During this appeal, all of the Varían matters referred to have been settled or disposed of, with the exception of one patent application.
This court has said that we should review “with extreme caution” attorney disqualification motions because of the use of such motions as “techniques of harassment,” and that disqualification is a “drastic measure which courts should hesitate to impose except when absolutely necessary.” Panduit Corp. v. All States Plastic Mfg. Co., 744 F.2d 1564, 1577 (Fed.Cir.1984) (quoting Freeman v. Chicago Musical Instrument Co, 689 F,2d 715, 721-22 (7th Cir.1982)). The need for caution was explained in Ross v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 447 F.Supp. 406, 409 (S.D.N.Y.1978), as follows:
The Disciplinary Rules, however, are not per se mandates calling for literal application. [Citations omitted.] On the contrary, even where a Disciplinary Rule is by its terms applicable, we must examine the facts of a claimed violation of the Code and attempt to shape a remedy which will assure fairness to the parties and integrity to the judicial process. [Citations omitted.] Disqualification is a drastic step which should be avoided if possible.
See also Board of Educ. of City of New York v. Nyquist, 590 F.2d 1241, 1246 (2nd Cir.1979) (“disqualification has an immediate adverse effect on the client by separating him from counsel of his choice, and ... disqualification motions are often interposed for tactical reasons.”).
I am convinced that the district courts erred in applying what amounted to a per se rule for disqualification under Canon 5 because no consideration was given to the detriment that Picker might suffer. The district court did not balance the duties and responsibilities to both clients and their respective interests.
When dealing with ethical principles, ... we cannot paint with broad strokes. The lines are fine and must be so marked. Guideposts can be established when virgin ground is being explored, and the conclusion in a particular case can be reached only after a painstaking analysis of the facts and precise application of precedent.
Fund of Funds, Ltd. v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 567 F.2d 225, 227 (2nd Cir.1977) (quoting United States v. Standard Oil Co., 136 F.Supp. 345, 367 (S.D.N.Y.1955)).
DR 5-105 says that “[a] lawyer shall not continue multiple employment if the exercise of his independent professional judgment in behalf of a client will be or is likely to be adversely affected by his representation of another client, or if it would be likely to involve him in representing differing interests.” Under this rule, all the facts and circumstances must be considered, recognizing there is a duty of loyalty to both clients. The language of the rule is broad and subject to flexible interpretation as indicated by the phrases “likely to be adversely affected by his representation” and “representing differing interests.” This is not a case where a law firm desired to drop a client in order to represent another client against the abandoned one, see Unified Sewerage Agency v. Jelco, Inc., 646 F.2d 1339, 1345 (9th Cir.1981), or where a law firm finds itself representing separate clients on both sides of the same issue. Fund of Funds, Ltd., 567 F.2d at 227-36. Rather, this case is one where a law firm by reason of a merger finds itself representing two clients on different issues; however, one of these clients with representation in the particular case by another law firm is being sued by the other client of the merged firm. See Pennwalt Corp. v. Plough, Inc., 85 F.R.D. 264 (D.Del.1980).
In the resolution of this case, the district courts should apply a balancing test to the facts as they presently exist. The continu*586ing representation of Varían now involves only one patent application. Varían is represented, as it has been from the outset, by competent other counsel in its litigation with the merged firm’s other client, Picker. The district court should determine the detriment each client would suffer by withdrawal. Prejudice to the respective clients is the foremost consideration, the merged law firm having a duty of loyalty to both.
*587DECISIONS WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINIONS 587 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Third Circuit DECISIONS WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINIONS Docket Title Number Date Disposition Abdul-Alim, Appeal of.......88-5604 1/27/89 AFFIRMED Abdul-Alim v. State of N.J., Dept, of Corrections........88-5604 1/27/89 AFFIRMED Ackerman v. McBurney & Co., Inc.........................88-3458 1/30/89 AFFIRMED Alevras v. Chairman, State of N.Y. Bd. of Parole.........88-5726 1/5/89 AFFIRMED Altman Carpentry, Inc. v. Peri-ni Corp....................88-1551, 1/20/89 AFFIRMED 88-1567, 88-1594 American Friends Service Committee v. Department of Defense through Defense Logistics Agency..............88-1671 1/19/89 AFFIRMED Ayers, Appeal of.............88-1764 1/26/89 AFFIRMED Azorsky, Appeal of...........88-3424, 1/17/89 AFFIRMED 88-3425 Beaston, Appeal of...........88-5751 1/27/89 AFFIRMED Beaston v. Scotland School for Veterans’ Children..........88-5751 1/27/89 AFFIRMED Berkelbaugh v. Petsock.......88-3671 1/11/89 REMANDED Boatin v. Faraglia............88-1598 1/23/89 AFFIRMED Brantley v. Secretary of Dept, of Health and Human Services of U.S...................88-5643 1/23/89 AFFIRMED Brown, Appeal of............88-1601 1/20/89 AFFIRMED Burks, Appeal of.............88-3267 1/20/89 AFFIRMED Appeal from and Citation (if reported) D.N.J., Brown, J. D.N.J., Brown, J. W.D.Pa., Standish, J. D.N.J., Debevoise, J. E.D.Pa., Kelly, J. E.D.Pa., VanArtsdalen, J. E.D.Pa., Giles, J. W.D.Pa., Weber, J. M.D.Pa., Caldwell, J., 693 F.Supp. 234 M.D.Pa., Caldwell, J., 693 F.Supp. 234 W.D.Pa. E.D.Pa.., McGlynn, J. D.N.J., Sarokin, J. E.D.Pa., Newcomer, J., 690 F.Supp. 1423 W.D.Pa., Diamond, J.
*588588 869 FEDERAL REPORTER, 2d SERIES DECISIONS WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINIONS-Title Docket Number Pate Campbell v. Lalley...........88-1093, 1/23/89 88-1094, 88-1095 C.B.M. Coal Co. v. Benefits Review Bd....................88-3535 Clay v. East Jersey State Prison’s Medical Dept..........88-5618 1/30/89 1/10/89 Clover Square Associates v. Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. Co.........................88-5565, 1/17/89 88-5581 Disposition AFFIRMED REVIEW DENIED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED Cohen v. Ackerman..........88-3458 1/30/89 Cunningham v. Sides.........88-3585 1/20/89 Delaware Valley Wholesale Florist, Inc. v. Peters' Petals 88-1456 1/9/89 Des Moines '81 Associates, Appeal of.....................88-5644 Des Moines ’81 Associates v. F.W. Woolworth Co........88-5644 Drogowski v. Pennsylvania Dept, of Transp............88-3685 Elam v. Bowen..............88-5742 Engleman, Appeal of.........88-3360 Engleman v. White Mach. Co., Inc.........................88-3360 Fantasia, Appeal of...........88-1456 Farmer, Appeal of...........88-1672 Farmer v. Godiska...........88-1672 Fein v. S.E.C.................88-3471 Figueroa, Appeal of..........88-1325 Frazier v. Ryan..............88-1526 Garrett R.R. Car & Equipment, Inc. v. N.L.R.B.............88-3526, 88-3584 Government of Virgin Islands, Appeal of..................87-3803 AFFIRMED AFFIRMED VACATED IN PART AND REMANDED 1/30/89 AFFIRMED 1/30/89 AFFIRMED 1/25/89 AFFIRMED 1/30/89 AFFIRMED 1/17/89 AFFIRMED 1/17/89 AFFIRMED 1/9/89 VACATED IN PART AND REMANDED 1/23/89 AFFIRMED 1/23/89 AFFIRMED 1/17/89 REVIEW DENIED 1/27/89 AFFIRMED 1/20/89 AFFIRMED 1/23/89 ORDER ENFORCED, REVIEW DENIED 1/4/89 APPEAL DISMISSED, ORDERS VACATED •Continued Appeal from and Citation (if reported) E.D.Pa., McGlynn, J. Ben.Rev.Bd. D.N.J., Debevoise, J. D.N.J., Fisher, J., 674 F.Supp. 1137 W.D.Pa., Standish, J. W.D.Pa., McCune, J. E.D.Pa. D.N.J., Bissell, J. D.N.J., Bissell, J. W.D.Pa., Ziegler, J. D.N.J. W.D.Pa. W.D.Pa. E.D.Pa. E.D.Pa., Weiner, J. E.D.Pa., Weiner, J. S.E.C. E.D.Pa. E.D.Pa., Broderick, J. Dept, of Labor D.V.I.
*589DECISIONS WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINIONS 589 DECISIONS WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINIONS — Continued Title Docket Number Government of Virgin Islands v. Colbourne...............87-3767 Government of Virgin Islands v. Forde...................87-3862 Gus Genetti Hotel and Restaurant, Inc. v. Stevens........88-5639 Hamilton, Appeal of.........88-1695 Hanna v. Navistar Intern. Transp. Corp...............88-5619, 88-5635 Hardy v. U.S. Dept, of Agriculture........................88-5608 Hayes, Appeal of.............88-3561 Herzig v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. 88-1656 Hormell, Appeal of...........88-3424, 88-3425 Insurance Management and Services, Inc. v. Maryland Cas. Co.....................88-5524, 88-5553 Johnston v. Home Ins. Co____88-580 Jordan, Appeal of............88-3600 Jordan v. Lindholm..........88-3600 Kelly v. Hartford Ins. Co.....88-1700 Khalil v. University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey......................88-5625 Kilbarr Corp. v. Business Systems Inc., B.V..............88-5558 King v. Mahogany Run Development Corp...............87-3803 Koven, Appeal of............88-5605 Kravinsky v. Wolk...........88-1690 Labov v. Lalley..............88-1093, 88-1094, 88-1095 Date 1/23/89 1/4/89 1/23/89 1/26/89 1/20/89 1/20/89 1/9/89 1/9/89 1/4/89 1/20/89 1/20/89 1/23/89 Disposition REVERSED IN PART, REINSTATED IN PART AND REMANDED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED 1/17/89 AFFIRMED 1/12/89 AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED 1/11/89 AFFIRMED 1/23/89 AFFIRMED 1/13/89 AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED 1/20/89 AFFIRMED 1/10/89 AFFIRMED 1/23/89 AFFIRMED APPEAL DISMISSED, ORDERS VACATED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED Appeal from and Citation (if reported) D.V.I. D.V.I., O’Brien, J. M.D.Pa., Kosik, J. E.D.Pa., Shapiro, J. M.D.Pa., Muir, J. D.N.J., Rodriguez, J. W.D.Pa. E.D.Pa., Green, J., 693 F.Supp. 306 W.D.Pa., Weber, J. M.D.Pa., Kosik, J. D.N.J., Ackerman, J. W.D.Pa., Rosenberg, J. W.D.Pa., Rosenberg, J. E.D.Pa., Gawthrop, J. D.N.J., Debevoise, J. D.N.J., 679 F.Supp. 422 D.V.I. D.N.J., Palitan, J. D.Pa., VanArtsdalen, J. E.D.Pa., McGlynn, J.
*590590 869 FEDERAL REPORTER, 2d SERIES DECISIONS WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINIONS — Continued Title Docket Number Landes v. Yost...............88-1865 Ludlow v. Slocum............88-5516 Lustrelon, Inc. v. N.L.R.B. ... 88-3470, 88-3552 McCormick v. Odd Lot Trading, Inc....................88-1533 Marshak v. Pinkney..........88-5525 Meier v. Anderson...........88-1652 Midlantic Nat. Bank/Merchants v. United Venture Farms, Inc.................88-5626 Milek v. Roman..............88-5590 Miller v. Azorsky.............88-3424, 88-3425 Miller v. Emeco Industries, Inc.........................88-5551 Moore, Appeal of............88-5532, 88-5666 Morrow v. Bowen............88-5741 Mourning v. Vincent.........88-5458 N.L.R.B. v. Pennex Aluminum Corp.......................88-3456 N.L.R.B. v. Tubari Ltd., Inc. 88-3518, 88-3579 Netelkos, Appeal of..........88-5398 Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. Co., Appeal of.............88-5565, 88-5581 Ohlsen v. Government of Virgin Islands.................88-3102 Date 1/24/89 1/27/89 Disposition AFFIRMED AFFIRMED 1/17/89 AFFIRMED 1/20/89 1/17/89 1/27/89 1/17/89 1/30/89 1/17/89 1/3/89 3/31/89 1/31/89 1/12/89 1/20/89 1/30/89 1/24/89 1/17/89 1/4/89 Patrick v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp.......................88-1751 1/31/89 Perini Corp. v. Stern.........88-1551, 1/20/89 88-1567, 88-1594 Peters’ Petals v. Pozsonyi.....88-1456 1/9/89 Petrone, Appeal of...........88-3605 1/30/89 Pinkney, Appeal of...........88-5525 1/17/89 Pino, Appeal of..............88-3545 1/23/89 AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED REVERSED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED ORDER ENFORCED REVIEW DENIED, ORDER ENFORCED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED VACATED AND REMANDED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED VACATED IN PART AND REMANDED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED Appeal from and Citation (if reported) E.D.Pa. D.N.J., Debevoise, J. N.L.R.B. E.D.Pa. D.NJ. E.D.Pa., 692 F.Supp. 546 D.N.J., Wolin, J. D.NJ., Fisher, J. W.D.Pa., Weber, J. M.D.Pa. D.NJ., Barry, J. M.D.Pa. D.N.J., Brotman, J. Ben.Rev.Bd. N.L.R.B. D.NJ., Ackerman, J. D.NJ., Fisher, J., 674 F.Supp. 1137 D.V.I. E.D.Pa. E.D.Pa., Kelly, J. E.D.Pa. W.D.Pa., McCune, J. D.NJ. W.D.Pa., Weber, J.
*591DECISIONS WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINIONS 591 DECISIONS WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINIONS — Continued Docket Title Number Date Pittsburgh Nat. Bank v. Anderson ..................88-3545 1/23/89 Pittsburgh Nat. Bank v. Emrick 88-3545 1/23/89 Pittsburgh Nat. Bank v. Fent 88-3545 1/23/89 Pittsburgh Nat. Bank v. Leroy. 88-3545 1/23/89 Pittsburgh Nat. Bank v. Morris 88-3545 1/23/89 Pittsburgh Nat. Bank v. Parker 88-3545 1/23/89 Pittsburgh Nat. Bank v. Parker for Parker Children........88-3545 1/23/89 Pittsburgh Nat. Bank v. Pino 88-3545 1/23/89 Pittsburgh Nat. Bank v. Purdon 88-3545 1/23/89 Pittsburgh Nat. Bank v. Story 88-3545 1/23/89 Pittsburgh Nat. Bank v. Um-phrey......................88-3545 Pittsburgh Nat. Bank v. Vick-ing Ventures Corp..........88-3545 1/23/89 Pozsonyi v. Peters............88-1456 1/9/89 Prieto, Appeal of.............88-5666 1/12/89 Rotz v. Lalley................88-1093, 1/23/89 88-1094, 88-1095 Ryder Truck Rental, Inc. v. Graham....................88-1673 1/19/89 Salvador v. Mazzocone.......88-1449 1/30/89 Schirmer v. Eastman Kodak Co.........................88-1544 1/20/89 Sea-Land Service, Inc. v. Rock 88-3511 1/20/89 Smith, Appeal of.............88-3640 1/31/89 Solomon v. Bern Haven, Inc. 88-5429 1/31/89 Sowers v. Bradford Area School Dist.................88-3640 1/31/89 Disposition AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED 1/23/89 AFFIRMED AFFIRMED VACATED IN PART AND REMANDED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED APPEAL DISMISSED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED AFFIRMED Appeal from and Citation (if reported) W.D.Pa., Weber, J. W.D.Pa., Weber, J. W.D.Pa., Weber, J. W.D.Pa., Weber, J. W.D.Pa., Weber, J. W.D.Pa., Weber, J. W.D.Pa., Weber, J. W.D.Pa., Weber, J. W.D.Pa., Weber, J. W.D.Pa., Weber, J. W.D.Pa., Weber, J. W.D.Pa., Weber, J. E.D.Pa. D.N.J., Bissell, J. E.D.Pa., McGlynn, J. E.D.Pa. Fullam, J. M.D.Pa., Newcomer, J. E.D.Pa. Ben.Rev.Bd. W.D.Pa., Mencer, J., 694 F.Supp. 125 M.D.Pa. W.D.Pa., Mencer, J., 694 F.Supp. 125
*592592 869 FEDERAL REPORTER, 2d SERIES DECISIONS WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINIONS — Continued Title Docket Number Steele v. Mothercare Stores, Inc.........................88-5631 Stevens v. Gus Genetti Hotel and Restaurant, Inc........88-5639 Student Public Interest Research Group of New Jersey, Inc. v. Anchor Thread Co... 88-5504, 88-5527, 88-5775, 88-5858, 88-5859 Sweeney v. Stewart..........88-3044 U.S. v. Ayers.................88-1764 U.S. v. Brown................88-1601 U.S. v. Covatto...............88-3550, 88-3617 U.S. v. Falcone...............88-1541 U.S. v. Figueroa..............88-1325 U.S. v. Hamilton.............88-1695 U.S. v. Hayes................88-3561 U.S. v. Heilman..............88-5867 U.S. v. Koven................88-5605 U.S. v. Leech ...•.............88-3137 U.S. v. Martino..............88-1565 U.S. v. Medical Office of Dr. Charles Burks..............88-3267 U.S. v. Moore................88-5532, 88-5660 U.S. v. Netelkos..............88-5398 U.S. v. Petrone...............88-3605 U.S. v. Prieto................88-5666 U.S. v. Tucker...............88-1642 U.S. v. Weeden...............88-5697 Pate 1/24/89 1/23/89 1/25/89 1/26/89 1/20/89 1/26/89 1/23/89 1/27/89 1/26/89 1/20/89 1/31/89 1/20/89 1/30/89 1/30/89 1/20/89 1/31/89 1/24/89 1/30/89 1/12/89 1/25/89 1/27/89 Disposition AFFIRMED AFFIRMED 1/24/89 AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED Utility Co-Workers’ Ass'n v. Public Service Elec, and Gas Co.........................88-5661 1/19/89 AFFIRMED Williams v. Delta Truck Body Co., Inc....................88-1758 1/31/89 DISMISSED York v. Day .................88-1706 1/5/89 AFFIRMED Appeal from and Citation (if reported) D.N.J. M.D.Pa., Kosik, J. D.N.J. W.D.Pa., Willson, J. E.D.Pa., Giles, J. E.D.Pa., Newcomer, J., 690 F.Supp. 1423 W.D.Pa. E.D.Pa., Hannum, J. E.D.Pa. E.D.Pa., Shapiro, J. W.D.Pa. M.D.Pa. D.N.J., Politan, J. W.D.Pa., Mencer, J. E.D.Pa., O’Neill, J. W.D.Pa., Diamond, J. D.N.J., Barry, J. D.N.J., Ackerman, J. W.D.Pa., McCune, J. D.N.J., Bissell, J. E.D.Pa. M.D.Pa., Rambo, J., 651 F.Supp. 76 D.N.J., Barry, J. E.D.Pa. E.D.Pa., Newcomer, J.
*593DECISIONS WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINIONS 593 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Fourth Circuit DECISIONS WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINIONS Title Docket Number Abbott v. Nichols......... 88-2533 Adkins v. U.S.................88-2573 Barnard v. Board of Com’rs of Clay County, N.C...........88-3503 Bell v. English ...............88-6803 Bellamy v.Kastle Systems, Inc. 88-3909 Braude & Margulies, PC v. Pierce Associates, Inc.......88-2523 Brazerol v. Bowen...........88-2856 Brooks v. Muncy.............88-7761 Brown v. Stephenson.........88-6844 Capps v. Baker...............88-6852 Castleberry v. Dixon.........88-7806 Date 2/6/89 2/2/89 2/3/89 2/6/89 2/10/89 2/13/89 2/17/89 2/9/89 2/2/89 2/16/89 Castleberry v. State of N.C. ..88-7303 2/21/89 Charles v. Dougal............88-1714 2/16/89 Clay v. Moore................88-7183 Clune v. Schultz.............88-2132 Cumber v. McQueen.........88-7793 Dominion Resources, Inc. v. Atlantic Nuclear Services, Inc.........................88-1040 Ferrante v. Bowen...........88-3907 Florence Pepsi Properties, Inc. v. Energywave Corp........88-1523 Gullet v. Wilt................88-6797 Hannan v. Bowen............88-3108 Harris v. Davis...............88-7822 Heaney v. Kinney Shoe Corp. 88-3560 Henry v. Denmark Technical College.....................88-3980 Hicks v. Butler...............88-3075 2/7/89 2/6/89 2/6/89 2/21/89 2/7/89 2/6/89 2/21/89 2/9/89 2/2/89 2/15/89 2/21/89 2/14/89 Disposition AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED 2/15/89 AFFIRMED Hill-Bey v. State of MD......88-7291 2/17/89 Hohl v. Roberts..............88-1713, 2/2/89 88-1737 AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED CPC DENIED, IFP DENIED — DISMISSED DISMISSED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED REVERSED AND REMANDED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED REVERSED AND REMANDED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED Appeal from and Citation (if reported) N.D.W.Va. D.S.C. W.D.N.C. E.D.Va.; Appeal after remand 836 F.2d 545 E.D.Va. E.D.Va. W.D.Va. W.D.Va. E.D.N.C. E.D.N.C. M.D.N.C. E.D.N.C. E.D.N.C., 685 F.Supp. 508 S.D.W.Va. E.D.Va. E.D.N.C. N.D.W.Va. D.Md. D.S.C. D.Md. S.D.W.Va. D.Md. N.D.W.Va. D.S.C. E.D.Va. D.Md. D.Md.
*594594 869 FEDERAL REPORTER, 2d SERIES DECISIONS WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINIONS — Continued Title Docket Number Date Home and Lot Owners Ass’n of Shawnee-Land, Inc. v. Mar-jec Inc.....................88-3093 James Berry Co., Inc. v. Ener-gywave Corp...............88-1522 Johnson v. City of Charlotte, N.C........................88-3031 Johnson v. C.I.R..............88-1727 Jordan v. Juhnke............87-1747 Kirby v. Lee.................88-7694 Langley v. Chester...........87-6608 Marshall v. Huffman.........88-7314 Martin v. Hagg..............88-7313 Miller, In re.................88-8024, 88-8025 Miller v. Culpeper County Jail 88-7267 Million v. Murray............88-7825 Moody v. State of MD........88-7259 Newkirk v. Portsmouth Circuit Court......................88-7799 Payne v. U.S. Dept, of Health & Human Services............88-3132 Pilar v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore City..........88-2147 Richard v. Weinberger.......88-3937 Rizer v. Gillispie.............88-7312 Ross v. Lightfoot.............88-7054 Ruffin v. Johnson............88-6818 Sanders v. U.S................88-2936 2/16/89 2/6/89 2/3/89 2/16/89 2/3/89 2/14/89 2/15/89 2/16/89 2/13/89 2/21/89 2/16/89 2/21/89 2/17/89 2/9/89 2/7/89 2/10/89 2/6/89 2/16/89 2/16/89 2/2/89 Shipp v. Dunning............88-6851 2/13/89 Smith, In re.................88-8027 2/21/89 Smith v. Bowen..............88-2524 2/10/89 Smith v. Warden, Maryland Penitentiary................88-7771 2/16/89 Spears v. Bullock............88-6757 2/13/89 Sweeney Co. of Maryland v. Engineers-Constructors, Inc. 88-3918, 2/10/89 88-3932 Talley v. Bowen..............88-3867 2/21/89 Tauber v. Goldstein..........88-3570 2/10/89 Tauber v. Meyer.............88-3569 2/10/89 T.E. Cuttino Const. Co. v. Rigid Steel Structures............88-3913 2/17/89 Disposition AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED DISMISSED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED IFP GRANTED-DISMISSED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED 2/15/89 AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED VACATED AND REMANDED DISMISSED AFFIRMED IFP DENIED— DISMISSED AFFIRMED IFP GRANTED-DENIED VACATED AND REMANDED CPC DENIED— DISMISSED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED Appeal from and Citation (if reported) W.D.Va. D.S.C. W.D.N.C. U.S.T.C. E.D.Va. E.D.N.C. E.D.N.C. W.D.Va. N.D.W.Va. M.D.N.C. E.D.Va. W.D.Va. D.Md. E.D.Va. W.D.Va. D.Md. E.D.Va. N.D.W.Va. D.Md. E.D.Va. D.Md. E.D.Va. D.Md. E.D.N.C. D.Md. E.D.N.C. E.D.Va.; Appeal after remand 823 F.2d 805 E.D.Va. D.Md. D.Md. D.S.C.
*595DECISIONS WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINIONS 595 DECISIONS WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINIONS-Docket Title Number Date Disposition Twine v. Murray.............88-7680 2/21/89 CPC DENIED— DISMISSED Underwood v. Winebrenner . .88-6775 2/2/89 CPC DENIED— DISMISSED U.S. v. Bush.................88-7133, 2/7/89 AFFIRMED i 88-7189 U.S. v. Dragotta..............88-7673 2/10/89 AFFIRMED U.S. v. Gbolade..............88-5016 2/15/89 AFFIRMED U.S. v. Henry................88-5033 2/21/89 AFFIRMED U.S. v. Hoffman.............87-5154 2/21/89 AFFIRMED U.S. v. Merchant.............88-5585 2/16/89 AFFIRMED U.S. v. Miller................88-7248 2/21/89 AFFIRMED U.S. v. Smith ................87-5139 2/16/89 AFFIRMED U.S. v. Swanger..............88-5536 2/15/89 AFFIRMED U.S. v. Woodard.............88-5117 2/8/89 AFFIRMED U.S. v. Worsley..............88-5120 2/21/89 AFFIRMED Varney v. Bowen.............88-2832 2/7/89 AFFIRMED Wheeler v. Virginia Elec. & Power Co..................88-1040 2/21/89 AFFIRMED Wilkins v. Gift...............88-6628 2/16/89 AFFIRMED Wilkins v. Packard...........88-6629 2/16/89 AFFIRMED Williams v. Harris-Teeter Supermarkets, Inc.............87-3192 2/16/89 AFFIRMED ■Continued Appeal from and Citation (if reported) E.D.Va. D.Md. E.D.Va. D.Md. E.D.N.C. W.D.N.C. M.D.N.C. W.D.Va. M.D.N.C. D.S.C. W.D.N.C. E.D.Va. E.D.Va. S.D.W.Va. N.D.W.Va. D.Md. D.Md. W.D.N.C.