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
Gregory C. Krug, Individually and As a Partner of Kruginvestments; and As a Beneficiary of the Eleanor Barronkrug Q-tip Trust, the Krug Family Trust, the Carol E. Krug1988 Trust, and the Carol E. Krug 1974 Trust, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Ambrose, Wilson, Grimm & Durand, a Tennessee Partnership;william C. Wilson, Individually; Paul T. Coleman,individually; and Valley Fidelity Bank& Trust Company, Defendants-appellees
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. - 16 F.3d 1220NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit.
Jan. 3, 1994
Before: BOGGS and NORRIS, Circuit Judges, CELEBREZZE, Senior Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff, Gregory C. Krug, appeals orders of the district court granting summary judgment to defendants in plaintiff's action arising out of a claim of malpractice.
Having carefully considered the record on appeal and the briefs of the parties, we are not persuaded that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to defendants.
As the reasons why judgments should be entered for defendants have been articulated by the district court, the issuance of a full written opinion by this court would be duplicative and serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, the judgments of the district court are affirmed upon the reasoning set out by that court in its Memorandum Opinions filed on May 5, 1992, and January 19, 1993.