Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

223 F.2d 646

Docket No. 12308.

Lamb v. Hyde

District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals

Argued May 11, 1955. Decided May 26, 1955.

District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1955-05-26

3 counsel of record

Relies on Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1955-05-26

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently January 1971

2 federal appellate · 2 district ·

30195519601970decided

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 →

Mr. Russell Morton Brown, Washington, D.C., with whom Messrs. J. Howard McGrath and Robert J. Norvell, Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for appellants.

Mr. Warren D. Quenstedt, Atty. Federal Communications Commission, with whom Messrs. Warren E. Baker, Gen. Counsel, Federal Communications Commission, J. Smith Henley, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Federal Communications Commission, Harrison, Ark., and Stanley S. Neustadt, Atty., Federal Communications Commission, New York City, were on the brief for appellees.

Mr. Richard A. Solomon, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Federal Communications Commission, also entered an appearance for appellees.

Before WILBUR K. MILLER, BAZELON and FAHY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

¶1

This is an appeal from an order of the District Court denying the appellants' motion for a preliminary injunction and granting the appellees' motion to dismiss. We affirm on the ground that appellants have failed to exhaust the prescribed administrative remedy. Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Co., 1938, 303 U.S. 41, 50-51, 58 S.Ct. 459, 82 L.Ed. 638.

¶2

Affirmed.

/223/f2d/646 · .json · Public domain