Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

269 F.2d 227

Docket No. 14896.

O'Brien v. Rogers

District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals

Argued April 28, 1959. Decided May 21, 1959.

District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1959-05-21

2 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“Appellant’s dismissal from a position in the Department of Justice was sustained by the Civil Service Commission’s Board of Appeals and Review on March 4, 1955. On June 29,1955, the Commission declined to reopen the matter. On March 27, 1958, appellant filed a complaint “for illegal separation from government service.” The District Court granted appellee’s motion for summary judgment. The claim was barred by laches. We need not consider appellee’s other contentions. [ 269 F. 2d 227 ]”

quoted by 1 later decision, including O'Brien v. United States

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1959-05-21

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently September 1974

1 federal appellate ·

40195919601970decided

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. Keith L. Seegmiller, Washington, D.C., for appellant.

Mr. Donald B. MacGuineas, Atty., Dept. of Justice, with whom Asst. Atty. Gen. George C. Doub and Mr. Samuel D. Slade, Atty., Dept. of Justice, were on the brief, for appellee. Messrs. Oliver Gasch, U.S. Atty., and Carl W. Belcher, Asst. U.S. Atty., also entered appearances for appellee.

Before EDGERTON and WASHINGTON, Circuit Judges.1

PER CURIAM.

¶1

Appellant's dismissal from a position in the Department of Justice was sustained by the Civil Service Commission's Board of Appeals and Review on March 4, 1955. On June 29, 1955, the Commission declined to reopen the matter. On March 27, 1958, appellant filed a complaint 'for illegal separation from government service.' The District Court granted appellee's motion for summary judgment. The claim was barred by laches. We need not consider appellee's other contentions.

¶2

Affirmed.

1

Judge FAHY was present at the argument but took no part in the consideration or decision of the case

/269/f2d/227 · .json · Public domain