descrybe logo
You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Richard E. Larkin, Jr. v. Charles J. Kehoe John E. Moore, Deputy Director of Department of Youth & Family Services Gayle Turner, Chief of Operations of Department of Youth & Family Services Linda J. Morris, Director of Oak Ridge Learning Center Clendinen T. Smith, Facility Manager of Oak Ridge Learning Center/department of Youth & Family Services Phillip Minor, Counselor of Oak Ridge Learning Center/department of Youth & Family Services Luke Strong, Shift Coordinator Linda Lindfors, in Her Individual Capacity as Counselor

Citations: 57 F.3d 1066; 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 21745; 1995 WL 352537Docket: 94-2315

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit; June 13, 1995; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

Richard E. Larkin, Jr. appealed the district court's decision to grant judgment as a matter of law to the defendants after a bench trial regarding his claim of equal protection denial following his termination from employment. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and the district court's opinion, ultimately finding no reversible error. The court affirmed the district court's ruling, citing Larkin v. Kehoe, No. CA-94-31-3 (E.D. Va. Oct. 11, 1994), and concluded that oral argument was unnecessary as the facts and legal issues were sufficiently clear in the submitted materials.

Legal Issues Addressed

Judgment as a Matter of Law

Application: The district court's decision to grant judgment as a matter of law to the defendants was upheld, indicating the court found the evidence insufficient to support the plaintiff's claim of equal protection denial.

Reasoning: Richard E. Larkin, Jr. appealed the district court's decision to grant judgment as a matter of law to the defendants after a bench trial regarding his claim of equal protection denial following his termination from employment.

Necessity of Oral Argument in Appellate Review

Application: The appellate court determined that oral argument was unnecessary because the facts and legal issues were clearly presented in the submitted materials.

Reasoning: The court affirmed the district court's ruling, citing Larkin v. Kehoe, No. CA-94-31-3 (E.D. Va. Oct. 11, 1994), and concluded that oral argument was unnecessary as the facts and legal issues were sufficiently clear in the submitted materials.

Review of District Court's Opinion

Application: The appellate court conducted a review of the district court's opinion and the record, affirming the lower court's decision due to the absence of reversible error.

Reasoning: The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and the district court's opinion, ultimately finding no reversible error.