Willard M. Mason v. Richmond Motor Co., Inc., T/a Richmond Ford R. C. King, Sr. Charlie Johnson
Cases that cite this one
1 later published case cites this decision.
- Bradley v. North Carolina Department of Transportation (District Court, W.D. North Carolina 2003)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
825 F.2d 407
Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Willard M. MASON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
RICHMOND MOTOR CO., INC., t/a Richmond Ford; R. C. King,
Sr.; Charlie Johnson, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 86-2626
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Argued June 5, 1987.
Decided July 30, 1987.
Robert Patrick Geary (Geary & Davenport, on brief), for appellant.
Henry M. Massie, Jr. (Robert B. Delano, Jr., Sands, Anderson, Marks & Miller, on brief), for appellees.
Before WINTER, SPROUSE and CHAPMAN Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
This appeal arises out of an age discrimination suit in which the jury found for the defendant. The district court admitted into evidence the findings of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that the plaintiff, who had complained to the EEOC, had failed to substantiate his claim. The plaintiff-appellant argues that this admission constitutes reversible error. Finding the district court's decision within its discretion, we affirm.
This court has held that the decision on whether to admit into evidence EEOC records is discretionary with the district court. Cox v. Babcock and Wilcox Company, 471 F.2d 13, 15 (4th Cir. 1972). We perceive no reason on the facts of this case to conclude that the district court abused its discretion. The district court's limiting instruction helped the jury put the report in proper perspective.
The appellant's other contentions are equally without merit. We thus affirm the decision of the district court.
AFFIRMED.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.