Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

301 F.2d 506

Docket No. 16310.

Chappelle v. Sharp

District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals

Argued Oct. 20, 1961. Decided Nov. 22, 1961, Petition for Rehearing Denied Jan. 15, 1962, CertiorariDenied May 28, 1962, See 82 S.Ct. 1250.

District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1961-11-22

2 counsel of record

Relies on Rodriguez v. New York · United States Arant v. Lane · Lyles & Lang Construction Co. v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1961-11-22

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently August 2000

1 district · 1 state decisions

3019611970198019902000decided

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. Sommers T. Brown, Washington, D.C., with whom Mr. Paul M. Rhodes, Washington D.C., was on the brief, for appellant.

Mr. Nathan J. Paulson, Asst. U.S. Atty., for appellees. Mr. David C. Acheson, U.S. Atty., Mr. Charles T. Duncan, Principal Asst. U.S. Atty., and Miss Doris H. Spangenburg, Asst. U.S. Atty., were on the brief, for appellees.

Before PRETTYMAN, WASHINGTON and BURGER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

¶1

This is a civil action in which the plaintiff sought reinstatement in a Civil Service position in Federal Government employ, expungement from the employment records of all references to his removal, and back pay for the period of his unemployment. His appeal to the Civil Service Commission was adversely decided on August 1, 1957. He filed his complaint June 17, 1960. This was thirty-four and one-half months after the final administrative action on his removal. The defendant officials moved to dismiss, filing in support an affidavit reciting facts which upon their face posed the problem of laches. Plaintiff filed an opposition, in which he referred to the defendants' 'attempting to raise the issue of laches'. The trial court entered summary judgment.

¶2

The plaintiff's case was barred by laches. The law on the point was established by United States ex rel. Arant v. Lane1 in 1919 and has consistently been applied by the federal courts in many cases since then.2 The judgment of the District Court is

¶3

Affirmed.

/301/f2d/506 · .json · Public domain