United States v. Jones
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
29 F.3d 1549 (1994)
- Written by Serena Lipski, JD
Facts
Marvin P. Jones (defendant) received a loan from the National Health Service Corps (NHSC) scholarship program that helped him pay for medical school. Jones then entered into an employment agreement with the United States Department of Health and Human Services, under which he agreed to work at a federal health clinic, Westside, in return for the forgiveness of his debt to NHSC. The agreement provided that Jones could be reassigned to another site if his employment at Westside was terminated but also stated that if Jones was terminated before the agreement’s end for failure to fulfill the employment requirements, then he would have to pay back his loan. Jones was terminated a year before the end of his contract, and Jones sued NHSC. During that suit, the court issued an order dated June 5, 1991, containing findings of fact and references to witness testimony stating that Jones was discharged due to poor attendance and interpersonal difficulties. A year later, the government sued Jones to recover the outstanding loan balance. The government now moves this court to take judicial notice of the findings in the June 5, 1991 order that Jones was discharged from his employment due to attendance and interpersonal difficulties as evidence that he failed to meet his employment requirements.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Albritton, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 820,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
