Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

207 F.2d 32

Docket No. 11680.

Love v. Stevens

District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals

Argued June 30, 1953.

Decided July 30, 1953.

Petition for Rehearing Denied Aug. 19, 1953.

District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1953-07-30

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently July 2010

2 federal appellate ·

2 counsel of record

Relies on 104 F. Supp. 102 - Love v. United States · Love v. United States · 98 F. Supp. 770 - Love v. United States

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1953-07-30

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Mr. Harold R. Love, appellant, pro se.

¶2Mr. Joseph Langbart, Attorney, Department of Justice, with whom Messrs. Leo A. Rover, U. S. Atty., William R. Glendon, Asst. U. S. Atty. at the time the brief was filed, and Edward H. Hickey, Attorney, Department of Justice, were on the brief, for appellees. Mr. Charles M. Irelan, U. S. Atty. at the time the record was filed, and Mr. William J. Peck, Asst. U. S. Atty., also entered appearances for appellees.

¶3Before EDGERTON, WILBUR K. MILLER and FAHY, Circuit Judges.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5In the District Court appellant sought relief against officials of the United States by reason of (1) his suspension from Government employment for a few months in 1944-1945, (2) a short additional suspension and dismissal in 1947, and (3) suspension in 1951, without a hearing, of his eligibility status for appointment as an Internal Revenue agent. The court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, basing its action on the first claim upon plaintiff’s laches, on the second suspension and dismissal upon res judicata,1 and on the third upon lack of standing to sue. We affirm on the same grounds except as to the third claim we base affirmance on the failure of the complaint to state a cause of action.

¶6Affirmed.

/207/f2d/32 · .json · Public domain