From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Fisher v. Janey

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
Jun 27, 2007
No. 07-7012 (D.C. Cir. Jun. 27, 2007)

Opinion

No. 07-7012.

Filed On: June 27, 2007.

BEFORE: Sentelle, Henderson, and Tatel, Circuit Judges.


ORDER


Upon consideration of the motion for summary reversal, the response thereto and motion for partial summary affirmance, and the reply to the response to the motion for summary reversal and response to the motion for partial summary affirmance, it is

ORDERED that the motion for summary reversal be denied. The merits of the parties' positions on the expert witness fee issue are not so clear as to warrant summary action.See Taxpayers Watchdog, Inc. v. Stanley, 819 F.2d 294, 297 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (per curiam). It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for partial summary affirmance be dismissed as moot. Those aspects of the District Court's order addressed in the motion for partial summary affirmance are not at issue in this appeal.

Because the court has determined that summary disposition is not in order, the Clerk is instructed to calendar this case for presentation to a merits panel.


Summaries of

Fisher v. Janey

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
Jun 27, 2007
No. 07-7012 (D.C. Cir. Jun. 27, 2007)
Case details for

Fisher v. Janey

Case Details

Full title:Evan Fisher, A Minor, through his parents and next friends David and…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

Date published: Jun 27, 2007

Citations

No. 07-7012 (D.C. Cir. Jun. 27, 2007)