Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

293 F.2d 852

Docket No. 16213.

Joseph De Luca v. Robert B. Anderson, Secretary of the Treasury

District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals

Argued May 24, 1961. Decided June 8, 1961.

District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1961-06-08

2 counsel of record

Relies on Newell M. Hargett v. Arthur E. Summerfield · United States Gypsum Co. v. National Gypsum Co.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1961-06-08

How this case has been cited

Cited by 63 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2005 · most notably Carmen Gonzalez v. Orville L. Freeman (1964), Carter v. Seamans (1969)

30 federal appellate · 13 district · 1 state decisions

34019611970198019902000decided

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. Joseph DeLuca, appellant pro se.

Mr. Arnold T. Aikens, Asst. U.S. Atty., for apellees. Mr. Oliver Gasch, U.S. Atty., at the time the brief was filed, Mr. Carl W. Belcher, Asst. U.S. Atty., at the time the brief was filed, and Miss Doris H. Spangenburg, Asst. U.S. Atty., were on the brief for appellees. Messrs. David C. Acheson, now U.S. Atty., and Donald S. Smith, Asst. U.S. Atty., also entered appearances for appellees.

Before EDGERTON, WASHINGTON and BASTIAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

¶1

This is a civil service case, in which plaintiff-appellant seeks reinstatement to his former post in the Internal Revenue Service. We have considered the contentions advanced by appellant, but are satisfied he received all the procedural rights accorded him by statute and regulation. We find no error 'cognizable within the scope of permissible review.' Hargett v. Summerfield, 100 U.S.App.D.C. 85, 88, 243 F.2d 29, 32, certiorari denied, 353 U.S. 970, 77 S.Ct. 1060, 1 L.Ed.2d 1137 (1957). The order of the District Court, granting the Government's motion for summary judgment, will accordingly be

¶2

Affirmed.

/293/f2d/852 · .json · Public domain