Industrial Bank of Washington v. Techmatics Technologies, Inc., et al., Officepro, Inc., Appellant, 955 F.2d 764 (D.C. Cir. 1992)

Annotate this Case
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit - 955 F.2d 764 (D.C. Cir. 1992) Feb. 25, 1992

Before HARRY T. EDWARDS, SENTELLE and RANDOLPH, Circuit Judges.


JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM

This case was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on briefs and oral argument presented by the parties. After full review of the issues presented, the court concludes that appropriate disposition of the appeal does not warrant an opinion. See D.C. Cir. Rule 14(c). For substantially the reasons stated by Judge Harris in his opinion below, see Industrial Bank of Washington v. Techmatics Technologies, Inc., 763 F. Supp. 629 (D.D.C. 1991), it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the judgment from which this appeal has been taken be affirmed.

The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition of any timely petition for rehearing. See D.C. Cir. Rule 15.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.