U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Rusmisell v. Smith
This writing
- Type
- Opinion of the Court
- Per curiam
- Yes — no individual author
- Filed
- June 14, 2002
- Case
- Rusmisell v. Smith
- Case status
- Decided
Source The opinion is per curiam: issued in the name of the court, with no individual author. This is a fact about the opinion, not missing data.
Opening text
The first passage of the document, as extracted by the source provider.
PER CURIAM. Betty M. Rusmisell and Ann Rusmisell appeal the district court’s orders awarding attorney’s fees and costs in accordance with the methodology of Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, 488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir.1974), and denying their motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Rusmisell v. Smith, No. CA-98-23-2 (N.D.W. Va. Nov. 5, and Dec. 3, 2001). We deny the motion to strike informal briefs and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the *528 materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED.…
Source Extract supplied by CourtListener. Benchlight does not host the document — read the authoritative text in the court's own PDF.