Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

203 F.2d 219

Docket No. 11474.

Terry v. Stevens

District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals

Argued Feb. 10, 1953.

Decided April 16, 1953.

District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1953-04-16

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently October 1966

3 federal appellate ·

3 counsel of record

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1953-04-16

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Mr. Keith L. Seegmiller, Washington, D. C, for appellant.

¶2Mr. William E. Kirk, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Washington, D. C., at the time of argument, with whom Messrs. Charles M. Irelan, U. S. Atty., and William R. Glendon, Asst. U. S. Atty., Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellee.

¶3Mr. Joseph M. Howard, Asst. U. S. Atty., Washington, D. C., at the time brief was filed, also entered an appearance for appel-lee.

¶4Before CLARK, WILBUR K. MILLER and PROCTOR, Circuit Judges.

¶5PER CURIAM.

¶6This appeal is from a summary judgment for the defendant (appellee) in an action whereby Miss Terry (appellant) sought an order (1) declaring removal from her civil service position to he invalid and (2) restoring her to said position. She complains that proceedings resulting in her removal violated the Act of August 24, 1912, c. 389, § 6, 37 Stat. 555, as amended June 10, 1948, c. 447, § 6(a), 62 Stat. 354, 5 U.S. C.A. § 652, and U. S. Civil Service Commission Regulations § 9.102, 5 C.F.R. § 9.102 (1949 ed.), for failure to charge a removable cause and for insufficiency and uncertainty in the proceedings in form and substance to meet requirements of the law.

¶7Examination of the record of the removal proceedings leads us to agree with the trial judge that there was substantial compliance with the applicable law. Accordingly the judgment is

¶8Affirmed.

/203/f2d/219 · .json · Public domain