Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Victoria P. Rusbosin; Vincent Rusbosin, Ii, Plaintiffs-appellants, v. Kevin E. Pugh, Defendant-appellee,andbernard D. Crooke; Montgomery County, Maryland, Defendants
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. - 894 F.2d 402Unpublished Disposition
Submitted: Nov. 20, 1989.Decided: Jan. 2, 1990
Victoria P. Rusbosin, Vincent Rusbosin, II, appellants pro se.
Karen Louise Federman, Linda D. Berk, Clyde H. Sorrell, County Attorney's Office, for Appellee.
Before DONALD RUSSELL and K.K. HALL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM:
Victoria and Vincent Rusbosin appeal the judgment against them on their federal constitutional and pendent state law claims. The claims arose out of events surrounding Victoria Rusbosin's arrest and subsequent acquittal. We have examined the record and we find no reversible error.1 We therefore affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and oral argument would not significantly aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.
The Rusbosins argued that the jury instructions on immunity were improper and they requested a transcript of those instructions at government expense. We decline to order a transcript. The appellee submitted copies of the jury instructions on immunity, and we find that these instructions accurately stated the law. The Rusbosins have not suggested that the instructions submitted by the appellee were not in fact the instructions given at trial