The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
00-1984•William M. Nobles, d/b/a Stebrita Music v. Carlin America, Incorporated
00-1984Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitJan 8, 2001
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-1984
WILLIAM M. NOBLES, d/b/a Stebrita Music,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
CARLIN AMERICA, INCORPORATED; TRIO MUSIC COM-
PANY, INCORPORATED,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
LIEBER & STOLLER,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard, District
Judge. (CA-99-98-4-H)
Submitted: December 20, 2000 Decided: January 8, 2001
Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
Robert L. White, Greenville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Robert
C. Osterberg, ABELMAN, FRAYNE & SCHWAB, New York, New York, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
William M. Nobles appeals the district court’s order applying
the doctrine of laches to his claim and entering summary judgment
in favor of the Defendants. We have reviewed the record and the
district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. According-
ly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Nobles v.
Carlin America, Inc., No. CA-99-98-4-H (E.D.N.C. June 20, 2000).
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.