Ernesto Aleotti, Appellant, v. Patricia Baar, et al., Appellees, 107 F.3d 922 (D.C. Cir. 1996)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit - 107 F.3d 922 (D.C. Cir. 1996) Oct. 23, 1996

Before Silberman, Randolph, and Rogers, Circuit Judges

ORDER

PER CURIAM.


Upon consideration of the motions for summary affirmance, the opposition thereto, the reply, the motion for stay, the motion for leave to file opposition to reply, and the court's order to show cause, it is

ORDERED that the order to show cause be discharged. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the motions for leave to file and for stay be denied. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the motions for summary affirmance be granted substantially for the reasons stated by the district court in its opinion filed July 20, 1995. 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 curiam); Walker v. Washington, 627 F.2d 541, 545 (D.C. Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 994 (1980).

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. 41.

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.