Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

25 F. Supp. 709

Barrett v. Morgenthau

District of Columbia District Court

Decided December 6, 1938

District of Columbia District Court · decided 1938-12-06

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 203

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1938-12-06

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently September 1983

4 federal appellate · 2 district ·

80193819401950196019701980decided

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 →

BAILEY, Justice.

¶1In my opinion the plaintiff, who is a retired army officer, is not an “officer in the employ of the United States”, within the provisions of Title 18, Sec. 203, U. S. Code, 18 U.S.C.A. § 203. His pay is rather in the nature of a pension than compensation for services performed. He admits that he is a person holding a place of trust or profit “under the provisions of Sec. 198, Title 18, U. S. Code [18 U.S.C.A. § 198] and as such ineligible to practice before the Treasury Department in the prosecution “of any claim against the United States.” He is not, however, debarred by statute from appearing as an attorney before the Treasury Department in any matter not involving a claim against the United States, and I see no reasonable ground for a regulation forbidding a retired army officer- from appearing as an attorney before the Department in cases which do not involve claims against the United States.

¶2The demurrer to the answer should be sustained.

/25/fsupp/709 · .json · Public domain