Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

179 F.2d 466

Docket No. 9847.

Buck v. Snyder

District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided Nov. 16, 1949.

District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1949-11-16

2 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“. . . where, during the pend-ency of an action . . . brought by or against an officer of the United States . . . and relating to the present or future discharge of his official duties, such officer dies, resigns, or otherwise ceases to hold such office, it shall be competent for the court wherein the action, suit, or proceeding is pending, whether the court be one of first instance or an appellate tribunal, to permit the cause to be continued and maintained by or against the successor in office of such officer, if within six months after his death or separation from the office it be satisfactorily shown to the court that there is a substantial need for so continuing and maintaining the cause and obtaining an adjudication of the questions involved.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Snyder v. Buck

Relies on Defense Supplies Corporation v. Lawrence Warehouse

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1949-11-16

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2009

8 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions

1301949195019601970198019902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Mr. Morton Hollander, Attorney, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., with whom Assistant Attorney General H. G. Morison and Messrs. George Morris Fay, United States Attorney, and Samuel D. Slade, Attorney, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellant. Messrs. Sidney Sachs, Assistant United States Attorney, and William Clarence Brewer, Attorney, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., also entered appearances for appellant.

¶2Mr. John Geyer Tausig, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Gibbs L. Baker, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appel-lee.

¶3Before CLARK, PRETTYMAN, and PROCTOR, Circuit Judges.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, and was argued by counsel; and thereafter on request of the court the parties filed memoranda on the question whether the case has abated.

¶6On consideration whereof, and it appearing that appellant Rear Admiral W. A. Buck, sued herein as Paymaster General of the Navy, resigned such office on March 1, 1948, and was succeeded by Read Admiral Edwin D. Foster, who now holds that office, and it appearing that no motion was made under Section 11 of the Act of February 13, 1925 (formerly Sec. 780, Title 28, U.S.Code,1 which was repealed by the Act of June 25, 1948, Ch. 646, 62 Stat. 992, effective September 1, 1948), requesting the Court to “permit the cause to be continued and maintained by or against the successor in office of such officer,” and that the six-months period within which such a motion could have been made expired September 1, 1948, and the Court being of opinion that the action has abated because of failure to substitute appellant’s successor [See Defense Supplies Corp. v. Lawrence Co., 1949, 336 U.S. 631, 69 S.Ct. 762, particularly that portion of the opinion dealing with United States ex rel. Claussen v. Curran, 1928, 276 U.S. 590, 48 S.Ct. 206, 72 L.Ed. 720] it is

¶7Ordered by the Court that the judgment of the District Court on appeal in this case be, and it is hereby, vacated and that this case be, and it is hereby, remanded to the District Court with directions to dismiss the complaint as abated.

/179/f2d/466 · .json · Public domain